“Provocative and absurd” - the Japanese Whaling Associations response to the Australian government
Comments by our whales specialist John Frizell
©Greenpeace/Jiri Rezac
On the 19th of December the Australian government issued a media release, stating:
"Australia strongly believes that there is no credible scientific justification for the hunting of whales and is opposed to all commercial and 'scientific' whaling."
The President of the Japan Whaling Association, Keiichi Nakajima, has in return issued a press release - it makes quite interesting reading, our whales specialist John Frizell's comments in bold. / Iréne
---------------
"On December 19, 2007 Australia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Honourable Stephen Smith, issued a joint media release with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Peter Garrett.
The release states that "Australia strongly believes that there is no credible scientific justification for the hunting of whales and is opposed to all commercial and 'scientific' whaling" and notes that "the Australian Government will step up efforts to end this senseless and brutal practice, using a range of diplomatic, legal and monitoring and surveillance initiatives" that "the Government is giving serious consideration to a range of options for international legal action against Japan" and that "the Government will develop its own proposal for improving and modernising the IWC, which will include closing the loophole that allows for scientific whaling."
In the proper context of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) and the International Whaling Commission (IWC) these comments of the Government of Australia are provocative and absurd. The fact is that the ICRW is about properly managing the whaling industry by regulating catch quotas at levels so that whale stocks will not be diminished. The Convention is not about protecting all whales irrespective of their abundance.
The ICRW provides for the designation of sanctuary areas which are 'closed waters'. When it was first established the IWC declared 1/4 of the Antarctic to be a closed area where no whales could be hunted. So it is well within the scope of the IWC to protect all whales within a sanctuary area, regardless of abundance.
Further, the fact that Australia was a whaling country when it agreed to and signed the ICRW and subsequently changed its position to an anti-whaling position following the closure of its industry in the 1970s does not change the Convention.
Mr. Nakajima appears to be suggesting that Australia took some sort of easy option, changing position on whaling when this no longer mattered to it but the reverse of this is true. Australia changed its position on whaling after a government inquiry and then closed its industry as a result, with a resulting loss of employment for about 200 people.
If Australia can no longer agree to the Convention it should withdraw rather than subvert its purpose. Smith and Garrett can ignore these facts but they cannot change them.
Conventions can be updated and modernised. Australia has every right to propose this.
Australia together with other anti-whaling members of the IWC have sacrificed the principles of science-based management and sustainable use that are the world standard (and supported by Australia in other international fora and for the management of their own resources) as a political expediency to satisfy the interests of non-government organizations.
NGOs are not able to dictate to governments in this way (much as we might like to). Governments respond to the will of their people and Japan's whaling in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary was an issue in the recent elections in Australia. To suggest that the Australian government is acting as it is because a few NGOs have told it to is absurd and insulting.
This has made the IWC dysfunctional and threatens much-needed international cooperation required to properly manage and conserve all marine resources.
The IWC is not 'dysfunctional'; it is simply refusing to do what Japan wants. Had Japan not recruited over 20 poor developing countries to the IWC to parrot arguments provided by Japan, we would not be seeing much of the heated rhetoric which Japan points to as evidence of 'dysfunction'.
It is of considerable concern therefore that Australia's stepped up efforts to end commercial and scientific whaling will undermine the work of the current IWC Chairman (William Hogarth of the United States) to resolve the dysfunctional nature of the organization and return it to its proper functioning as a resource management organization.
Let's keep in mind that when Mr Najima speaks of properly managing whales he means hunting them.
Japan's whaling is not "senseless and brutal". Neither is it illegal in any way. The most recent review of Japan's research whaling program in the Antarctic by the IWC's Scientific Committee in December 2006…
- Actually it was by a workshop chaired by the chair of the Scientific Committee. It was held in Tokyo and, unusually for a review, included among its participants those reponsible for the original proposal, so they were in the position of reviewing their own work. Of the 54 participants, 29 were listed as representing Japan and were associated with the Japanese whaling establishment.
… concluded that "the dataset provides a valuable resource to allow investigation of some aspects of the role of whales within the marine ecosystem and that this has the potential to make an important contribution to the Scientific Committee's work in this regard as well as the work of other relevant bodies such as the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources".
This comes from the section of the report which looked at the role of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem through feeding and is based on the stomach contents, body weight and blubber thickness of 6,777 minke whales. Mr. Nakajima omitted to say that some scientists expressed their disappointment and concern at how little analysis had been undertaken given the enormous dataset available or that the workshop doing the review recommended more sophisticated analyses. There was considerable disagreement on what the data meant. A real science program would devote its effort to analysing the material it already had before collecting more.
The Scientific Committee also agreed to its earlier (1997) conclusion that the results from the research program "have the potential to improve management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere".
Another bit of selective omission by Mr. Nakajima. What the workshop actually reaffirmed is that the results from the research program *while not required for management under the RMP*, have the potential to improve management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere".
And what 'improved management' means is the ability to set larger quotas than would be allowed under the current version of the RMP, the IWC's new system for setting quotas. So this is saying that the JARPA results are not needed if you wanted to start commercial whaling now but might allow you to set even larger quotas if you did.
The suggestion of Smith and Garrett that somehow Japan's whale research program is a violation of international law and that Japan is not acting in accordance with its international treaty obligations is totally without foundation. Article VIII of the ICRW unequivocally provides the right of members of the IWC to kill whales for research purposes and further states that "the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention." Conversely, the fact that the Government of Australia has publicly stated that it no longer accepts the terms of the ICRW and yet continues to participate in the IWC is a self indictment that it has failed to meet its legal obligation to interpret and implement its treaty obligations in good faith.
This article was agreed upon in 1946, and was only intended to allow for very small takes of whales. It is now being abused by Japan to allows its whaling industry to continue operations.
Finally, Smith and Garrett note that "Australia values its extensive and mutually beneficial relationship with Japan" and that "as in any close relationship there are some issues on which we cannot agree". In the face of this disagreement on whaling, Australia's determination "to play a leading role in international efforts to stop Japan's whaling practices" is arrogant and an insult to Japanese people and their culture.
A more constructive approach with less media hype is needed.
---------------------------
Perhaps he would like to lead the way.
At its 2007 meeting, which received the Dec 2006 review, the IWC passed by
majority a resolution saying that they are convinced that the aims of JARPAII do not address critically important research needs.
The commission called upon the government of Japan to
- address the 31 recommendations listed in Appendix 4 of Annex O of the Scientific Committee report relating to the December 2006 review of the JARPA I program to the satisfaction of the Scientific committee.
- suspend indefinitely the lethal aspects of JARPA II conducted within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
Resolution on JARPA (PDF)
Report of the Scientific Committee (PDF)
Read the joint media release by Australia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Peter Garrett.
The press release from the Japan Whaling Association
Comments
I'd like to make comments to John Frizell's (in italic).
The ICRW provides for the designation of sanctuary areas which are 'closed waters'. When it was first established the IWC declared 1/4 of the Antarctic to be a closed area where no whales could be hunted. So it is well within the scope of the IWC to protect all whales within a sanctuary area, regardless of abundance.
Article V of the ICRW, where the sanctuaries are mentioned, also precises that :
These amendments of the Schedule (a) shall be such as are necessary to carry out the objectives and purposes of this Convention and to provide for the conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale resources; (b) shall be based on scientific findings; (c) shall not involve restrictions on the number or nationality of factory ships or land stations, nor allocate specific quotas to any factory ship or land station or to any group of factory ships or land stations; and (d) shall take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry.
So I strongly doubt that "it is well within the scope of the IWC to protect all whales within a sanctuary area, regardless of abundance".
Conventions can be updated and modernised. Australia has every right to propose this.
Well changing the goal of the ICRW, that is
to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry,
is certainly not just "updating and modernising" it. Australia is just ignoring the desire and rights of people in Japan, Norway or Iceland who want to utilize whales for food as set in the Convention.
The IWC is not 'dysfunctional'; it is simply refusing to do what Japan wants. Had Japan not recruited over 20 poor developing countries to the IWC to parrot arguments provided by Japan, we would not be seeing much of the heated rhetoric which Japan points to as evidence of 'dysfunction'.
Well, what Japan wants is to utilize whale resources through the regulated management of the IWC.
Now, Mr. Frizell has certainly forgotten how the number of member countries in the IWC grew three folds between 1978 and 1982 thanks to "recruiting" by anti-whaling nations and NGOs in order to obtain the 3/4 majority necessary for the moratorium to be adopted.
Let's keep in mind that when Mr Najima speaks of properly managing whales he means hunting them.
Well, I suppose Mr. Nakajima has never hidden what he was meaning there.
- Actually it was by a workshop chaired by the chair of the Scientific Committee. It was held in Tokyo and, unusually for a review, included among its participants those reponsible for the original proposal, so they were in the position of reviewing their own work. Of the 54 participants, 29 were listed as representing Japan and were associated with the Japanese whaling establishment.
Well, you usually expect the people involved in the research to be reviewed to present their works. Besides, it was held at the ICR, in Tokyo.
It wasn't chaired by Arne Bjørge, chairman of the Scientific Committee, but by J. Bannister.
This comes from the section of the report which looked at the role of whales in the Antarctic marine ecosystem through feeding and is based on the stomach contents, body weight and blubber thickness of 6,777 minke whales. Mr. Nakajima omitted to say that some scientists expressed their disappointment and concern at how little analysis had been undertaken given the enormous dataset available or that the workshop doing the review recommended more sophisticated analyses. There was considerable disagreement on what the data meant. A real science program would devote its effort to analysing the material it already had before collecting more.
I could quote the SC Chair, Arne Bjørge who, asked by the BBC, said "To make it very short, the review panel was very pleased with the data (Japan has) collected and provided from the programme. There was some advice on how these data could be further analysed, or better analysed, but there was general consensus about the high quality and the usefulness of the data."
How about the Australian non-lethal research programme which former minister Ian Campbell presented at the IWC in 2006? Where are the results?
Another bit of selective omission by Mr. Nakajima. What the workshop actually reaffirmed is that the results from the research program *while not required for management under the RMP*, have the potential to improve management of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere".
And what 'improved management' means is the ability to set larger quotas than would be allowed under the current version of the RMP, the IWC's new system for setting quotas. So this is saying that the JARPA results are not needed if you wanted to start commercial whaling now but might allow you to set even larger quotas if you did.
What the IWC/SC said of the JARPA programmes can be found here :
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm
To quote the passage mentioned :
The Committee also noted that while JARPA results were not required for management under the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), they had the potential to improve it in the following ways: (1) reductions in the current set of plausible scenarios considered in RMP Implementation Simulation Trials; and (2) identification of new scenarios to which future Implementation Simulation Trials will have to be developed (e.g. the temporal component of stock structure). The results of analyses of JARPA might allow an increased allowed catch of minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere without increasing the depletion risk above the level indicated by the existing Implementation Simulation Trials for these minke whales.
This article was agreed upon in 1946, and was only intended to allow for very small takes of whales. It is now being abused by Japan to allows its whaling industry to continue operations.
Well nothing in article VIII sets any limits to numbers in takes of whales for research purposes but those the contracting government granting the permit "thinks fit". So whether Japan is abusing it or not is just interpretation.
Posted by: isanatori | December 30, 2007 7:59 AM
Hi Irene, I have just read an interesting article on the following web site. The article suggests that there may have been a deal struck between Mr Hoggarth and the Japanese that he will try to return the IWC to 'normalisation' if they dropped the hunt for humpbacks. I found this very worrying and sincerely hope that Mr Hoggarth does not wish to overturn the moratoriam. www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/12/29/18469230.php
With regard to your article, i really cannot understand why the IWC cannot do more to stop Japan. With so many against the issuing of the permit how can they get away with it? I also cannot understand how Japan can decide not to abide by 'the IWC rules' without any consequence and refuse to acknowledge sanctuaries declared by the very organisation they belong to.
Posted by: cath | December 30, 2007 1:14 PM
GP are stupid to not work with SSCS in finding the fleet. face it you've a large area to search and working with another ship and a chopper for this purpose makes good sense. The offer made by SS is one in which both groups will mutually benefit.
An analogy however obtuse would be the way the ALP and the Greens do preference deals in Australia. About the only thing the 2 parties had in common this year was they wished to see the end of John howard. so they combined their numbers and put the result beyond doubt. at the end the both parties still function independently of eachother and push there own agendas and policy.
have a think about the good folks that shell out there $$ to GP, and the amount of diesel you burn looking for the fleet verse the amount of time you spend protesting the slaughter.
chris.
Posted by: chris | December 30, 2007 4:10 PM
Isanatori, i really dont know why you continue to visit this site and write blogs trying to discredit GP and constantly try to rip many of their articles to bits.. actually i do know why.. its because you are in favour of whaling. Well if you hadnt noticed this is a GP site, a site that is clearly anti whaling and whilst you have a right to your opinion i find it offensive that you place it here in such an antagonising manner. Your constant pro whaling blogs are NOT going to recruit people to your cause.
You say 'Australia is just ignoring the desires and rights of the people of Japan' If you hadnt noticed -it is not just Australia who are against the slaughter! And what about the rights and desires of the majority of people who are against this? Surely the majority should not be ignored, they also have a right to a say in what happens to the worlds whales.. after all they do not just belong to Japan to satisfy the taste buds of a few. As for the scientific research.. absolute rubbish, its just commercial whaling in a very poor disguise, the figures of the amount of whales they have killed in the name of research speak for themselves.
If they had a taste for elephant i doubt they would be able to go to the game reserves and help themselves, just because whales live in the ocean doesnt give Japan the right to sail wherever they want picking them off. And yes, i do know you cant really compare but i was just making a point.
Posted by: cath | December 30, 2007 10:39 PM
On what basis do the Japanese or anybody else claim a "Right" to slaughter whales, for food or any other purpose, Isanatori?
Because their government has enough money to outfit a whaling fleet?
Then if I have enough money to outfit an anti-whaling fleet, I have a "right" to stop you and your chums from slaughtering whales, right?
Because I happen to believe that Whales have Rights just like whalers and their government sponsors. Unfortunately, the whales and their rights were not represented when the IWC was set up. Nor are they yet. But that can change. And will.
The IWC was and is not set up to protect whales; it is set up to manage the so-called "sustainability" of whaling so as to maximize the profits for those who invest in whalers. That is why the IWC will ultimately fail: because there is no profit to be made in whaling. There hasn't been for a long, long time.
If there was, your Japanese, Norwegian, and Icelandic whaling fleets would not require taxpayer-funded government subsidy to even exist, let alone survive.
"Right To Life, Right To Freedom of Speech and Thought and Assembly, Right To Breathable Air and Drinkable Water, Right To Protection From Governments and Other Criminals...," these I understand. But, the "right" to kill and eat whale? Is that in the U.N. Charter someplace that I missed?
Please do not confuse "needs and wants" (or intent to make profit regardless of the suffering inflicted upon others) with "rights."
JG Moebus
S/V Wayfinder
Half Moon Bay, CA
PS: What's your e-address? I would like to pursue several issues with you off-blog so as not to clutter it up w/ our exchanges. Thanks.
Posted by: JG Moebus (S/V WayFinder) | December 31, 2007 1:19 AM
Chris - the area where the whaling takes place is massive - it stretches from South of South Africa all the way to east of New Zealand - 35°E-145°W, and from below 60°S. It's an area of over 1 million square miles, within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary which itself is nearly 15 million square miles in size.
Your criticism refers to us spending too much time looking for the fleet rather than protesting the hunt. Well, the fact of the matter is that we have to spend a lot of time and resources - and, yes, unfortunately, disel, to search a massive piece of ocean in order to find the fleet, before can carry out the protest.
As we've repeatedly pointed out, Greenpeace doesn't work with Sea Shepherd. Greenpeace has a long history and core principle of non-violence, and we will continue to maintain that principle in all our actions. We know that Sea Shepherd also consider themselves non-violent and consider ramming other ships at sea to be non-violent, but we do not agree with their definition of non-violence. The sea, particularly in the Antarctic, is a difficult and harsh environment and although we will continue to take calculated risks ourselves to protect whales, we will not place the lives of others at risk. We are here to defend the whales, not attack the whalers.
Posted by: Dave on the Esperanza | December 31, 2007 4:32 AM
isanatori, in relation to your comment.. "Australia is just ignoring the desire and rights of people in Japan, Norway or Iceland who want to utilize whales for food as set in the Convention."
Isn't Japan hunting whales for RESEARCH as clearly stated on the side of the Nisshin Maru, and not simply for food as you have just suggested?
Posted by: Steve | December 31, 2007 5:36 AM
Nice comment made this morning by Karli in a brief interview with the ABC regarding Japan's "sustainable" killing of fin whales.
Isanatori, your comments are better placed on your friend david's blog where they subscribe to cruelty, indulgence and distortion of facts. Spare us here please.
Posted by: EJE | December 31, 2007 5:49 AM
Instead of telling Isanatori to leave we should keep on discrediting her ideas and proving him/her wrong. Who knows maybe he/she will see the error in its beliefs and start protesting whaling? I feel pity for people who believe that first of all killing in protected waters is ok and then lying about how it is justified by so called "research". I have a friend living in Japan now and she has told me about seeing the whale meat in the markets just sitting there because no one wants it. With this "research" what good has came out of it? Discovered anything meaningful? Except how to make a whale cry and suffer?
Posted by: Stacey | December 31, 2007 1:36 PM
dear crew of the espy
from a cold holland but warm greetings for a very succesful whalecampaign
lets show japan for once and for all what the world thinks of whaling
my heart is with you
as they say in newzealand
kia kaha, be strong
Posted by: patricia kouwenberg | December 31, 2007 2:41 PM
Dave,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. My criticism is not so much the fact your burning diesel, but more so the stubborness of refusing to work with SSCS in locating the fleet. finding the whalers underpins the success or failure of both the GP and SSCS campaigns.
Lets not get bogged down in the finer points of non violence, I accept GP & SSCS are different. but the tactics either group decides to employ in protest is each their own business.
In the broader context of public opinion you are either for or against, hence both groups GP & SSCS are heaped into the same basket - WETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!!
Posted by: chris | December 31, 2007 5:12 PM
Stacey,
I believe you will find that Isanatori is a French male, with very firm ideas about killing whales, amongst other things.
Posted by: Peter | January 1, 2008 9:47 PM
Dear Crew of the Esperanza
My name is Jasmine and I am 9 years old. Just before Christmas we went to Albany and saw the whaling station there. It made me sad, but I am pleased that Australia doesn't kill whales any more. I really want to help you save the whales, because I don't want them to die. I think that most Japanese people would be sad too, if they knew that this killing was taking place by their country.
I hope you succeed.
Good luck
Jasmine
Posted by: Jasmine Laing | January 2, 2008 12:45 PM
Yes, but I believe we (and sorry for saying she) can change this if given time. Think about it-how can he justify his belief on lies and propaganda? Or just ignore him. Bottom line is we can't kick him out and we don't have to read his post.
Greenpeace and Seashepherd will save the whales and that is all that matters. : )
Posted by: Stacey | January 2, 2008 1:21 PM
hey dave and the guys on the esperanza.
how you doing. some nice pictures have been taken with the webcam.. hope you all had a great christmas and a new year..
i agree with you about the fact that ramnming into the whalers ships will produce nothing. especially in unpredictable seas like the southern ocean..
i have no problem with the japanese.. it just disheartens me to know that the majority of their country is most proably against the whaling, yet their goverment allow the murderous killing to go on, regardless of their thoughts to anybody else and especially the whales..
i wish you guys all the luck over the next few months and hopefully we can finally put an end to this meaningless trade..
after all sanctuaries are meant to be places of safety and not a place where youre most likely to be killed
i believe that our race has killed more than enough on this planet. we dont need to kill anymore
good luck anyway.
the pictures of antartica are really good.. its nice to know that at least one continent is left with nature and to look its best.
let hope that we can put an end to this slaughter once and for all.. with out having to exort to violence
happy new year
kim
Posted by: kimberly walsh | January 2, 2008 11:37 PM
"Greenpeace and Seashepherd will save the whales and that is all that matters. : )"
Indeed!
Posted by: Peter | January 3, 2008 4:51 AM
Hi there Jasmine...,
I had a kittie by that name once. ...and I think you're a pretty smart girl, and I couldn't agree with you more. Thank you for writing in here, ...I look forward to hearing more from you and your wisdom.
Posted by: Grateful Child | January 3, 2008 4:57 PM
GP and SSCS appear to have their differences, but for me watching on hoping that someone will get down there and find the whalers and stop them, I only wish that those differences could be put aside for the common good - or for the dying whales.
To be honest I am not an SSCS supporter, Greenpeace, but I find it increasingly distasteful that GP continues to allow politics to get in the way of stopping whales from dying.
How about this? You issue a statement that while you deplore SSCS's tactics and do not agree with their methods or politics, you are willing to cooperate to locate the whalers. How about giving that a try? Maybe then you will find the killers before they finish up their kill quota.
- Andrew
Posted by: Andrew | January 5, 2008 1:24 AM
If, that is, Andrew, they have not already exceeded their kill quota by far.
Does anybody onboard ESPERANZA know if there are any ***independent*** observers (from the IWC or anyplace else) on board the Japanese vessels to actually physically and visually confirm that the number of whales that the Japanese say they are slaughtering is in fact THE TRUTH? And whether or not that they are in fact and indeed actually NOT killing humpbacks? Even "Mr Flashy Pants" or "Migaloo"?
Is there any mechanism in place to monitor the number of whales they actually really massacre in order to perpetrate their so-called "scientific" whaling? Or are we just supposed to take them at their word, and Trust Them?
In my Dec 28 letter to GP-HQ in DC on this issue, I wrote: "I am not asking Greenpeace to ram Japanese whaling ships or to compromise its self-proclaimed ideological and methodological integrity or purity. I am merely asking Greenpeace to accept the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's (SSCS) offer to share its aviation asset with you, and for you to share any information (primarily sighted whaling ship coordinates) that you might have with SSCS, so as to put a coordinated and expanded and thus more effective anti-whaling presence in the Southern Ocean. The only ones who will gain by your refusal to do this are the Japanese; the only ones who will suffer will be the whales."
The only ones having a good time right now down there in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary are the Japanese. And the only ones suffering right now down there in the SOS are the whales. The only question that needs to be answered now is: how many and how much?
I am still awaiting a response from GP-HQ-DC.
JG Moebus
S/V WayFinder
Half Moon Bay, CA
Posted by: JG Moebus (S/V WayFinder) | January 5, 2008 5:34 AM
I was a little disappointed by some of the comments that I read on here today. First I want to say that I am opposed to commercial whaling in any form (although I do support the rights of indigenous peoples, using traditional methods ie. not factory ships, to catch whales). I also agree with the actions of Sea Shepherd. I disagree with Isanatori. However he or she has every right to post comments on here and everyone should read it. Every person fighting this campaign MUST understand the arguements used against it. Isanatori raised some fair points. Unless someone can provide a valid point / example to discredit what Isanatori said, we shouldn't ignore him / her. If you think he/she is incorrect, please provide evidence to support your claim. PS I have lived in japan for 5 years, and I ve met very very few japanese who support whaling.
Posted by: dwayne | January 13, 2008 11:51 AM