I have watched some episodes of the “Whale Wars” show. In short, the Japanese catch whales under some legal provision that lets them capture them for research, they do their thing and then sell and eat the rest. The Sea Shepherds try to stop them with some vigilante justice saying that what the Japanese are doing is illegal.
Every episode starts with the story of how both sides believe they have the law on their side. What law is this? Who rules over it? Why can’t either side take the other to court if they are so sure they have the law on their side? If what the Japanese are doing is illegal, why isn’t anyone (in power) trying to stop them either at sea or at court?. If what the SS are doing is illegal, why aren’t the Japanese defending themselves either at sea or in court?
Is there really any law over this matter? What does it say? What’s the jurisdiction?
International law is one of those things that just isn’t really what it sounds like.
For instance, Japan signed up for the IWC. They claim to be following the IWC’s rules. But who is going to enforce an alternative interpretation? No one is going to bomb Japan, nor will any big nation (at least right now) impose sanctions, etc. (And if they did, the WTO and the UN, who have a little more clout than the IWC, might be displeased.)
On the other hand, it’s international waters, so the morons on the SS boat aren’t really under any nation’s jurisdiction. They haven’t really crossed the line into the kind of piracy that makes nations take notice and respond, so no one’s really going to bother them (and the US/Europe don’t care about Japanese whaling interests). Japanese ships sinking a foreign flag vessel would also look pretty bad for them, they don’t want to pull a France.
So it’s kind of the wild wild west down there, except there are some rules that might make the big boys get interested.
Well, I guess we see which side you’re on. For the record, I donate to the Sea Shepherds, and I have much respect for Paul Watson – a man who quit Greenpeace in disgust despite being one of its founders when he realized that waving a sign and marching politely in circles doesn’t deter sociopaths. Incidentally, I’m curious what you were planning to breathe when the seas are dead and the oxygen is gone.
Well, aside from the fact that whaling doesn’t have too much to do with pollution, the problem with the Sea Shepherds is that Watson’s antics, along with his complete lack of professionalism, are going to end up marginalizing legitimate environmental groups (read: those who don’t resort to silly grandstanding/violence/property damage), and even worse, he is eventually going to get someone killed.
The fact that the crew turnover is like 80% every time they hit port, plus the complete lack of training, and the cavalier attitude towards safety should indicate that even if someone is on the “right” side, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t a moron. And Watson (and his utterly retarded first mate) is a moron. He actually agreed to a plan to sneak on board another boat and sabotage it’s communication gear and navigation equipment. He probably won’t even feel bad for whichever hippie ends up dead as a result of his failures.
Whaling is “regulated” by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). The IWC was originally similar to other fishing organizations, and intended to establish methods, catches, etc., for commercial whaling. Within the last few decades, however, the organization has become dominated by non-whaling states and taken an anti-whaling stance.
In 1986 the IWC implemented a moratorium on whaling. This moratorium included an exception for whaling done for the purpose of scientific research. Japan has taken this loophole and run with it. They claim to be doing research, but it’s essentially just a front.
Now, IWC rules and regulations are completely voluntary with no enforcement mechanisms. Members are free to leave the organization and declare themselves outside IWC jurisdiction at any time. This means that even if Japan’s “research” whaling is in violation of IWC rules that there’s nothing that can be done about it, and anti-whaling countries don’t want to press Japan too hard on the issue because they don’t Japan to withdraw from the IWC and resume full commercial whaling.
And do you have any idea how many millions have died so far as a result of the actions of those Watson is fighting? You really, really need to read Pacifism As Pathology by Ward Churchill. To quote William S. Burroughs, “The people in power will not disappear voluntarily, giving flowers to the cops just isn’t going to work. This thinking is fostered by the establishment; they like nothing better than love and nonviolence. The only way I like to see cops given flowers is in a flower pot from a high window.”
Your use of “legitimate” is synonymous with “ineffectual.” As an organizer – and a successful one – I can tell you from long personal experience that if the police and the State are allowing you to do whatever it is you’re doing, then you are not in the least effective. Change occurs only with the direct and violent opposition of the State. The reason people like you oppose Paul Watson is because he doesn’t care what your opinion is. His acts are directly effective. He doesn’t need to “send a message” and hope an apathetic public is moved to action. He acts, himself, as an agent of change.
Direct action gets the goods. You are talking to a Wobbly, my scissorbill friend, and we have a 105 year old tradition of doing whatever it takes (“debaters or dynamiters” as one of our founders, Big Bill Haywood, put it) to get the job done. Fortunately you’re sitting impotently behind your keyboard while Paul Watson is out on an armoured ex-coast guard vessel with razorwire across its decks doing the job by means fair or foul. Let me know when Wal-Mart, Blackwater, and the CIA start playing by the rules; maybe then I’ll reconsider.
In addition to the other responses, it may also be that neither side wants to take the other side to court(if indeed its even possible), since neither side is sure what the outcome may be. The whalers could possibly file suit against the SS in some court somewhere, but that may bring international controversy against the whalers and ruin what they have going.
Likewise, the SS could try the same thing, and instead of getting the whaling stopped, instead only get large fines and their boat confiscated. Or even worse, simply make the japanese get fed up, quit the IWC, and resume whaling in full force.
And, according to Ellis Peters and others, Japan takes a lot more whales and even dolphins than it lets on.
Yes, Japan could withdraw from the IWC. But that would make Japan unpopular with many nations and cost it dearly. Trade sanctions are not impossible and certainly people would just tend to buy less stuff made in Japan. Even a 1/100 of 1% reduction would cost Japan moe than it gains from any harvest. Right now the harvest is done mostly to allow the Japanese to 'save face"- both by staying in the IWC and not knuckling under. This is why Japan lies about the harvest and calls it 'research".
Can the fishery (for lack of a better word to describe “fishing” for marine mammals) sustain the take of these whales? I don’t really know much about the subject and I’m not taking sides either.
The whale meat obtained from the hunting isn’t even edible. It’s so contaminated by pollutants that there are severe limits on the amount of whale meat permitted to be eaten by each individual over a set period of time. They’re killing whales for no reason except prestige and bloodlust. Whales which wash up dead on the shores of St. Lawrence Seaway are legally considered to be toxic waste as a result of the levels of toxins in the flesh, and have to be chopped up into barrels by people in hazmat suits and buried in old salt mines.
The ecosystem is holistic in the sense that, while it tends to be self-correcting, each and every part affects each and every other part, so that when change does occur, it does not occur to just a single part, but rather as a series of wildly stochastic changes setting each other off like dominoes across the entire system. How many people do Japanese whalers kill? The answer is the same if you ask how many people slash-and-burn banana farmers in the Amazon kill. Or how many people reef-killing shrimp trawlers kill. That is, zero – individually. But the collective action of all these people together with all the others who are exploiting our tottering ecosystem has killed millions from causes which can be linked directly to pollution and environmental degradation, ranging from cancer to asthma.
I won’t bother to discuss the morality of killing intelligent species (such as cetaceans, octopi, and higher primates) because I suspect your utilitarian perspective would hand-wave such discussion. I will, however, point out that it is in your own interest to ensure that your personal environment contains clean water, breathable air, and safe food.
This is not a GQ answer. You have not demonstrated that Japanese whalers, directly, or indirectly cause the death of millions. My question pertains to Japanese whalers specifically. A vague truism about the environment being holistic does not cut it. Your argument boils down to “people do bad things, Japanese whalers are people, hence Japanese whalers do bad things, hence we must attack them.”
I would appreciate if you would not make any assumption about what my perspective is.
I’m sorry for continuing what’s essentially a hijack, but I have to address this. The statement above demonstrates little understanding of the real issues. Trust me, I’ve been to whaling villages, I’ve lived in a Japanese finish town, and I can assure you there is zero prestige associated with any sort of ocean exploitation, whaling included. Japanese whalers are concerned with one thing and that is putting food on their families’ tables. Japanese politicians are concerned with re-election and they defend whaling just like any politician in any democracy tries to defend local industries, even if it means propping them up with subsidies. They may posture about “culture” and “tradition,” but ultimately the only problem they have with anti-whaling campaigns is that they see them as an attack on their constituents’ livelihood. Pride and bloodlust have nothing to do with this issue. It’s all about money.
Well, to be fair, it’s edible but it’s probably not great for you. Heavy metal contaminants are certainly a very big problem with cetacean meat, and they would be the most sensible reason to seek to ban them from the market.
Generally, yes. The Japanese hunt two species of whales as of now (Minke and Fin) and have proposed adding Humpback whales as well. Minke and Humpbacks aren’t endangered. Fin whales are and there could possibly be problems if the Japanese actually took their full quota.
The link didn’t work for me, but I have read about issues with high levels of mercury. I just found the comment that it was inedible to be a bit of an exaggeration.