One of the idiotic things I do here on this blog is cover the IWC meet every year. Why? I don't know - I guess I like finding out just how bad the rhetoric gets before people will make some compromises. After 3 years of this space, it's just not looking good.
Here's an example of the sort of stupid rhetoric you get: Caribbeans think the Anti-Whaling position is 'Economic Terrorism'.
The Japanese delegation think the Anti-Whaling lobby shows no respect to the whaling nations.
At the IWC meeting overnight, anti-whaling nations thwarted a bid by Denmark to allow its self-governing province Greenland to include 10 humpbacks in its annual aboriginal whale hunting quota.That doesn't sound too good. The BBC obviously thinks it's an un-constructive stalemate.
"If you scratch the surface then a lot of disrespect comes out, and I think today showed how difficult it's going to be for the whole future of the IWC process," said Glenn Inwood from Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR).
"The Japanese delegation was extremely disappointed and made a very strong presentation in the meeting after the aboriginal subsistence quota for Greenland was turned down," Inwood said.
The vote opposing endangered humpbacks being included in Greenland's aboriginal hunt came despite the IWC's scientific committee endorsing the proposal, and the whalers offering to give up rights to catch eight fin whales.
Australia voted against Denmark's bid, but other countries including Switzerland and the United States voted for the proposal, which failed by 36 votes to 29.
Inwood said a new process advocated by IWC chair Bill Hogarth to see annual votes at the IWC largely abandoned in favour of consensus from a working group, now faced uncertainty.
Peter Garrett takes over from the hopelessly idiotic Ian Campbell (who, in his infinite stupidity, has joined the board of directors of the maniacal Sea Shepherd organisation).
FEDERAL Environment Minister Peter Garrett has urged Japan to take part in a multinational collaboration in non-lethal Southern Ocean scientific research and to call off whaling.Yeah, that would be about right. As Marlon Brando once said, "What've you got?"
"In support of this new partnership approach … I would specifically ask that Japan suspend its lethal scientific research in the Southern Ocean," Mr Garrett said in his most direct call yet at this week's International Whaling Commission talks in Santiago.
Earlier in the week he had moderated his criticism of Japan.
Tokyo made no response to the partnership call. Glenn Inwood, a spokesman for Japan, said: "Japan feels it does not need to respond to this."
Australia's non-lethal research partnership proposal, announced by Mr Garrett yesterday, drew wide support from anti-whaling nations at the IWC. Some observers were hopeful Japan would join the first planning meeting, due early next year.
Labor came under further fire yesterday from critics who say it is being too soft on Japan.
Former Coalition environment minister Ian Campbell told ABC radio the IWC meeting "all just seems to be a big love-in. They all seem to be holding hands and saying let's sit around the table and talk about it, and that's exactly what Japan wants.
"Australia has just got to maintain the rage against this … We shouldn't even be talking to Japan unless they say 'we're fair dinkum about the talks and we'll stop whaling while the talks go on'."
Japan called on its opponents to give a little ground so it could move, in a cautious invitation to negotiate over the whaling divide.
After making a concession by suspending the kill of Australian humpbacks, the Asian power wants anti-whaling nations to make concessions themselves, its chief negotiator, Joji Morishita, said. "What do we get?" Mr Morishita asked The Age. "We would like to see something from the other side, then it will be easier for us to take the next step."
I think the problem is that the anglophone nations that go hard after the rhetoric have lost a road back to the negotiating table. The Whaling nations on the other hand actually have been at the table for some time, waiting for a proposal. I don't really see a way through this without the anglophone nations taking a PR hit.
ADDENDUM:
The Story so far.
June 2005 Part 1
June 2005 Part 2
June 2005 Part 3
June 2005 Part 4
June 2006
5 comments:
No one cares what you see or think.
Sea Shepherd is the only group out there ACTUALLY stopping the agonal slaughter of the Great Whales.
Indigenous whaling must stop. The vote against killing humpbacks is right and good. No one, NO ONE on this earth needs to eat whale flesh.
Better they eat their criminals who aren't as intelligent or sensitive as the SENTIENT BEINGS, THE GREAT WHALES.
ALL WHALING MUST BE STOPPED. THERE IS NO REASON TO KILL A WHALE. NONE.
The Sea Shepherd people are a pack of grand-standing wankers masquerading as a conservation group.
If they really wanted to save the world, they should be attacking oil-rigs pumping out all that carbon fuel.
But they don't.
Instead, it's "burn all this diesel fuel to get down to th antarctic to save whales" BS.
They're not helping the cause of the environment - even if you type in ALL CAPS.
The whaling 'issue' is a red herring. The fact that it's a mammalian herring that makespeople feel warm and fuzzy about themselves says more about the people than the cause.
Sea Shepherd... sea... ocean.. water... they are saving whales... they are trying to protect the marine environment from the likes of you. It is not their job to deal with oil rigs.
You should have stayed in the sea so a big shark could have eaten you.
Sea Shepherd is saving whales. Sea Shepherd is working with Ecuador to protect the Galapagos from shark finning, sea cucumber poaching and gill nets. They serve and protect the oceans and the beings who live in them, something you don't have the balls to do.
What have you done to help an animal or the environment instead of sitting on your ass?
Thanks for your best wishes that I get taken by a big shark.
We do cover that topic on this blog so you might want to dig around a bit.
You'll note I'm actually not anti-animal as you suggest.
'To serve and protect'?Isn't that the LAPD credo?
That would make 'Sea Shepherd' the Police Department of the sea?
But who appointed them that?
Oh I see, they're 'self-appointed!
We have a word for that and it's called vigilantism. So much for the claims of ethical behaviour.
I don't think you know what I do so I'll take your accusation that I haven't helped an animal as gross ignorance on your part.
Certainly such accusations and denunciations ring hollow from a person who chooses to sign on and post as 'anonymous'.
Also...
In answer to the question what I've done to help animals, I wrote this song here called 'Pony the Orangutan':
http://www.icompositions.com/music/song.php?sid=81480
Post a Comment