So on the third day the IWC is voting down Tokyo's proposal/declaration that it wants to double its quota for the next year.
New Zealand is busy strutting its stuff on the stage as the leading Anti-whaling nation.
"The vote was never going to be won by Japan but if they won a simple majority they would have had a big diplomatic victory and it would have justified their decision to double the number of whales they intend to take under their so-called scientific programme," he said. Now the conservation-minded block would push forward with a different conservation-minded scheme. "The Japanese will attempt to block that, of course, and that is why there is all this posturing about leaving," he said.The Solomon Islands it turns out pledged to vote with the anti-whalers and then flipped over to the whaling side. Kiribati voted with the anti-whalers, but Tonga didn't vote because it's actually NOT an IWC member. What were they even doing there? Gets funnier by the day.
China and Korea abstained because well, they have gripes with Japan about other issues. (Laugh out loud there too). But more on the Koreans in a moment.
John Howard called upon Japan to abandon whaling altogether because of the weight of opinon in his country. Right. So John, are you going to refelct on the weight of evidnce presented by the other camp? What about all the people who lent the weight of their opinion for you not to send people to detention centres, Johnny? Or to not send them to Nauru? What about that?
The Guardian in the UK is taking a moral stance. It's easy to take moral stances when you don't have anything personal at stake, isn't it?
There is a danger that the force of Japan's rejection makes matters uncertain. Its delegation is now sounding its traditional threats to defy the commission and openly resume commercial whaling, as Norway has. Japan argues that whale meat is a delicacy that is part of its culture, and as such it should be allowed to exercise its rights in the same manner as indigenous peoples do under IWC regulations. The trouble is that Japan's appetite for whales would surely outstrip sustainable culling.
Really? Where's the evidence to that effect? It's not that it's a 'charade', it's an attempt to accomodate the West by having some excuse for what it feels is its right. So why doesn't the West understand legitimacy having invented it? Or is legitimacy only applicable to when it's their cause? You know, like chossing to ignore evidence and charge into Iraq for a regime-change'? Hell-o-o-o-o.
Meanwhile, the Greens in Australia are saying some wild things:
Campaign coordinator Danny Kennedy says Greenpeace has been pointing out the loophole that allows Japan to kill whales for scientific purposes for a decade.
"It's a loophole we've been pointing out for a decade now, so we ... feel like it's good to hear the minister say this, but it's a little bit too little, too late," he told the Nine network.
"Yes, the IWC could do with reform, but we need to do other things outside in the real world of economic interests, which is what is driving this business." Australia issues fishing licences to the same vessels that slaughter whales, Mr Kennedy said.
"Why are we licensing our fishing grounds to the very same vessels engaged in whaling ... when we say we're opposed to whaling. Why don't we just cut them out of that deal?" he said."They're not really talking where it matters."
Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown agrees. "We're going to have to entertain much stronger measures than the diplomatic ones in Ulsan," he told ABC radio. "We're going to have to look at for example, whether our ports should be open to the fishing fleets coming from Japan at the same time as they're pursuing increased whaling kills, including the whales off our coast."
Wow. Now that could cause a major diplomatic spat. In other words, the Greens are willing to sever economic ties at all costs to stop Japan from whaling; irrespective of jobs and economic realities otherwise and notwithstanding. Screw the jobs in Adelaide at the Mitsubishi factory for a start... Hello, do I hear a madman in the pulpit of whale sanctuary-hood?
Meanwhile, there's this page over at Japan Today.
At the bottom you can read somebody offering the opinion that:
- 1) South Korea wants to resume whaling too.
- 2) It kills about 100 whales per year in its waters 'accidentally'.
- 3) 'Accidents' are allowed under the IWC, so the Koreans have assembled processing boats ready to have more 'accidental whale deaths' per year.
But for now, we know for sure the Koreans have announced that they won't build a whale-meat processing plant.
Now I can't authenticate this claim, but if so it points to a deeper problem,
At the To Suk Chung restaurant, which specialises in dog meat stew, there is little sympathy for the calls of conservationists to curb, or ban, the whale meat trade being made at the International Whaling Conference, a short taxi ride away from her bustling eatery.
"Whale meat and dog meat taste really good. They are a part of our culture," Pak said. "I remember something my grandfather told me. He said there are 99 different tastes for whales. Whale is great."
Some animal welfare activists condemn South Korea for its tradition of raising dogs for the stewpot. But those Koreans who eat dog defend the dish as part of their heritage and say the animals are bred to be eaten. Critics -- including many Koreans who do not eat the meat and dislike the tradition -- say some dogs are unlawfully beaten to death rather than humanely killed.
Dog stew is a popular summertime meal, mostly among Korean men, who say it provides them with vigour and energy to beat the heat. Patrons and staff at the To
Suk Chung have a message for those who think the practice is unseemly. "They
should come on in and give it a try. It's wonderful," Pak said. Another patron, who is involved in the whale meat trade, said he did not understand the opposition to whaling."This is hurting us economically," said Lee To-gun. Conservation groups such as Greenpeace say South Korean boats have been catching an increasing number of whales and declaring the catches as accidental. Greenpeace says it is no accident, but an attempt by some crews to cash in on the lucrative trade in whale meat. Ulsan, once a whaling port, still has a few restaurants that serve whale. Many of the patrons wiping sweat from their brows as they munched on steamy dog stew said if a dish was tasty, eat it, and if the source of the meat was growing scarce, then protect it.
"If scientists can show that a species of whale is going to go extinct in a few
years, then there is no way anyone should hunt it," said Kim Chong-kang, a retired oil company worker.Dog stew in South Korea comes in many varieties. The dpeciality at To Suk Chung is a stew in which the dog meat is served with leeks and aromatic herbs. The meat, which is dark and a little fatty, is then dipped in spicy Korean soyabean paste, ginger and more aromatic herbs. A pot of stew sells for 13,000 won ($US13) a person.
"Maybe part of the reason there is opposition to dog stew is that Western people may not have a palate that is used to this type of dish," said Bae Jong-do, a businessman.
No. It's because they respect the dog, but they don't respect sheep, cattle poultry and pig. Or maybe not. I've never had dog stew, and can't say I'm champing at the bit to try it out. Anyway...
The problem then, is much like the drug trade. There's a demand; making it illegal ain't going to make it go away. regulating it is the nly way to bring it under control. If you illegalise drugs, then you create a blackmarket for it. Turns out, the 850 scientific kills are merely the tip of the iceberg of all sorts of whale-hunting biz around the globe. So people have come back and said they want to do it legitimately and the only thing the anti-whaling nation can do is call them murderers. That helps a lot.
Canada for one, is NOT an IWC member, and hunts bowhead whales under the 'aboriginal' clause. So you can see this quote in their papers that you don't see in Australia, NZ or the UK:
"Whales are a part of our marine resources, just like fish," said Joji Morishita, a member of the Japanese delegation to the IWC meeting. "We don't see the logic of eating cows and pigs and not whales, (but) we don't impose our values on others."
Mr. Morishita said he understood the sensitivity of the issue, and added that Japan would not target endangered species, only going after species in abundance, like minke. He stressed Japan was not suggesting a return to the "bad old days of whaling," like in the 1950s and 1960s.
"We're talking about a well-monitored, well-regulated hunt under a strict quota," he said.
The Canadian perspective is this:
"We don't permit whaling here in Canada and we are not a member of IWC, so we are not going to have a position," said Chantal Lamadeleine, a spokeswoman for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Canada, though, can't totally wash its hands of the whales' plight. The Bay of Fundy in New Brunswick is home to several species of marine mammals, including the North Atlantic right whale -- one of the most endangered whales in the world. Hunting of the species ceased in 1937, but greater threats today are entanglements in fishing gear and ship strikes. Nearly three-quarters of the 300 remaining right whales show scarring or other signs of injury from fishing gear.
Mr. Ramage said he wasn't sure whether whales would be better off if Canada was more involved in the international governing body.
"It would depend which Canada would show up; the one that was a global leader promoting environmental responsibility and respected for it, or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which inexplicably continues to take a very irresponsible approach to marine mammals," he said, citing the commercial seal hunt.
Ah. The clubbing-cute-little-fur-seal-cub-issue. Yeah. They went through hell for that one in the 1980s, so you can see why they're going to sit this one out. Laughable really.
But let's keep in mind it's not just Japan that's putting its hand up to do some whaling here.
AUSTRALIA'S own environmental record and opposition to the Kyoto protocol left it in no position to object to an expansion of the whale kill, a pro-whaling group said today.
High North Alliance secretary Rune Frovik said the Australian stance was ridiculous and there was no way the current commercial whaling ban could be lifted. Mr Frovik said limited whaling would, however, continue and there was no way Australia could stop it.
"The fact is that whaling takes place and whaling will continue and whaling will also increase," he told ABC radio.
"It is not an option, not even for Australia to stop whaling. The only option left for Australia is to limit whaling. The way to go forward for Australia is to engage in serious negotiations with the whaling nations to find a compromise. "It is an easy issue for the Australian Government. The Australian Government is not very environmentally friendly. Your country's refusal to sign the climate change agreement, the Kyoto agreement - your Government is not thinking about the environment."
The High North Alliance website says it is an umbrella organisation rallying the interest groups representing whalers, sealers and fishermen from Canada, The Faroes, Greenland, Iceland and Norway. Environment Minister Ian Campbell yesterday returned from a whirlwind lobbying visit to the Solomon Islands, Kiribati and Tonga to seek support to block Japan's controversial plan to double its scientific whale kill and resume commercial whaling.
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) conference starts in Korea on June 20. Mr Frovik said whaling made sense as it produced food and provided a living for people. "We don't see any difference between sustainable whaling and sustainable fisheries," he said.
So there you have that one. Thank you Mr. Frovik for stating what needed to be stated for the record. Makes me feel like I want to move to Norway one day. :)
The High North Alliance Website is here. You should really try out their questionaire. It's a classic, but I found my way to the end safely in one go.
Our delegate Senator Campbell struck back with this lame retort. It really is lame:
"We lead the world in many respects in this area and one would expect Norwegian whaling interests to seek to personalise this and to attack Australia," he told Sky News.
The High North Alliance labelled the Australian stance as ridiculous. But Senator Campbell said the group was simply pushing its own agenda.
"Most people in the world think that whaling is something that belongs in a previous generation and should be stopped," he said.
"Those who whale and who make a dollar out of destroying whales - blowing them up with grenades - clearly would be expected to defend their financial interests."
I'm, sorry I didn't know that the Government of Australia went with what 'most people of the world thought'. Could have fooled me. Yeah, grenading whales would be unacceptable but bombing Iraq was totally humane. Sure.
See what I mean? It's not just that they've 'personalised' it; it's that they've hit us where it hurts; and it was all to be expected. Does Australia really want the whaling issue to be the issue on which its environmental cred rests? Is anybody feeling a little uncomfortable with the ramifications of that? Because that way lies the Green's proposal. Wasn't it better to have signed the Kyoto Protocol, even with all its faults if it was going to go into this stoush?
That wraps up Day 3 of the IWC Stoush; almost as good as today's Yankees' 8th inning. More fun tomorrow!
- Art Neuro
No comments:
Post a Comment