Japan may quit whaling commission if ban stays put

Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

This could serious affect international relations for Japan. Are they really this clueless and do they really need to eat whales??

NuckinFutz at 07:30 AM JST - 16th June Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

I trust that you DO realize that if Japan were to leave the IWC they could commercially hunt without any limitations. How is that good for saving the whales? More importantly the only international regulatory body in charge of whaling and ensuring whale stocks will be totally destroyed with no control or monitoring capability. Do you people actually want to save the whales or are you just anti-Japan? As for Australia's ICJ case that's a joke, a domestic political manuver, that would have been carried out years ago if it had any merit.

"Anti-whaling states, including Australia and New Zealand, have called a proposed whaling quota system unacceptable and demanded an end to Japan’s hunt in Antarctic waters."

This line is grossly misleading since Australia has rejected the IWC proposal in it's entirtey (despite have played a role in constructing it)and is non negotiable, whereas New Zealand, along with the United States are advocating negotiating the proposal.

tmarie at 07:37 AM JST - 16th June This could serious affect international relations for Japan. Are they >really this clueless and do they really need to eat whales??

Norway and Iceland don't have any international relations problems and they've been openly commercially hunting since 1986 by rejecting the Moratorium. No one is asking them if hey really need to eat whales are they?

Throwing a fit I guess is Japan's way to work with the international community. "We don't like your ban so we will withdraw and ignore it."

The international commission should then sign treaties to empower regional and local powers to act against whaling fleets with lethal force. If navies enforce the global treaties in international waters, then military vessils would have the right to interfere with, stop and seize vessils that break the protection standards. Those that resist would be treated in the same manner as pirates.

Since Japan would not have the stomach to offer up her navy in defense of these fleets (simple cost benefit would make such a move insane) Japan would have no choice but to give up whaling.

The time for patience is over. Japan's environmental habits with regards to the ocean need to be curbed. Peacefully or by force.

Norway and Iceland don't have any international relations problems and they've been openly commercially hunting since 1986 by rejecting the Moratorium. No one is asking them if hey really need to eat whales are they?

They also aren't chugging half-way around the world to hunt whales in contested waters. If Japan did the right thing and hunted within their EEZ or even in the same hemisphere things would be a lot different...

Ossan -- huh? If Japan were really serious about managing whale stocks/doing commercial whaling in a responsible manner, they would not threaten to quit "the only international regulatory body in charge of whaling and ensuring whale stocks will be totally destroyed with no control or monitoring capability." Me thinks you have the shoe on the wrong foot. Please stop pontificating to us about Japan from your perch in the U.S.

Oops, whaler chaps got caught with their hands in other nations' back pockets so instead of cheating they will just leave the game. Good riddance. Now the charade of Japanese duplicity can be buried. Let the boycotts begin. End of the day Japan is unable to sustain it's way of life without the goodwill of it's major western trading partners, this move erodes it all. All to preserve an illegitimate old boys club. Grow up Japan.

The IWC has held back Japan's whale research long enough. By unilaterally researching whales Japan will be able to find ways of studying more whales and research them more efficiently. Their research will have more credibility as well.

Hey, now they can save more whales by increasing "research".

Withdraw from the international whaling commission? Way to seriously alienate yourself Japan. If you do that other countries will impose trade sanctions on you until you rejoin or follow what they say, you will have no power because you are not a member...

Australia wants Japan to STOP whaling in the Southern Ocean, which in fact, is nowhere near Japan.

@ OssanAmerica It’s great to see somebody who actually knows what they are talking about!

Hippie Friend: Someone once told me when you look into the eye of a whale you can see your soul.

Me: I heard if you can look into the eye of a whale then you got one of the choice cuts!

BTW, I live in Australia and can see a ex-whaling station from the shore that was closed in 1963.

http://www.tangalooma.com/assets/dolphins/whaling%20station%20history.pdf

These days it is famous for whale-watching. Such short memories.

herefornow at 08:39 AM JST - 16th June Ossan -- huh? If Japan were really serious about managing whale >stocks/doing commercial whaling in a responsible manner, they would not >threaten to quit "the only international regulatory body in charge of >whaling and ensuring whale stocks will be totally destroyed with no >control or monitoring capability." Me thinks you have the shoe on the >wrong foot. Please stop pontificating to us about Japan from your perch >in the U.S.

And if anti-whaliong nations were really serious about managing whale stocks/doing commercial whaling in a responsible manner, they would refuse to negotiate the IWC proposal and force Japan to quit "the only international regulatory body in charge of whaling and ensuring whale stocks will be totally detroyed with no control or monitoring capability. To be fair, the United States and New Zealand see the light and advocate the IWC proposal. It's only "we own antarctica" Austalia that has it's own agenda and refuses to negotiate. As for my being home in the US, what part of INTERNATIONAL whaling commission are you incapable of understanding? THe United States is one of the founders of the IWC. What, you think this is all about "Japan"? Really get a clue.

thundercat at 08:31 AM JST - 16th June Norway and Iceland don't have any international relations problems and >they've been openly commercially hunting since 1986 by rejecting the >Moratorium. No one is asking them if hey really need to eat whales are >they? They also aren't chugging half-way around the world to hunt whales in >contested waters. If Japan did the right thing and hunted within their >EEZ or even in the same hemisphere things would be a lot different...

Do you honestly think that makes any difference to the rabid anti-whaling crowd. Did Australia file an action to stop Whaling in their claimed waters, or did they file to stop scientific whaling altogether? Australia's counter propsal to the IWC was "no whales to be killed at all", period.

Fine, let them quit. At least this will be the end of the blatant lies about "research".

This country is so childish on this matter. I feel ashamed for them.

tkoind2 at 08:24 AM JST - 16th June Throwing a fit I guess is Japan's way to work with the international >community. "We don't like your ban so we will withdraw and ignore it."

Yes, following what Norway and Iceland have been doing since 1986. But somehow that's "Japan's way"? Looks like copying to me.

The international commission should then sign treaties to empower >regional and local powers to act against whaling fleets with lethal >force. If navies enforce the global treaties in international waters, >then military vessils would have the right to interfere with, stop and >seize vessils that break the protection standards. Those that resist >would be treated in the same manner as pirates.

The International Whaling Commission's raison d'etre is to manage and regulate the whaling industry. It is not a "whale protection organization". Furthremore, it does not rely on treaties at all, which is why Norway and Iceland were able to "refuse to recognize" the Moratorium.

Since Japan would not have the stomach to offer up her navy in defense >of these fleets (simple cost benefit would make such a move insane) >Japan would have no choice but to give up whaling. the time for patience is over. Japan's environmental habits with regards >to the ocean need to be curbed. Peacefully or by force.

Nice fantasy. But that's all it is.

gogogo at 08:52 AM JST - 16th June Withdraw from the international whaling commission? Way to seriously >alienate yourself Japan. If you do that other countries will impose >trade sanctions on you until >you rejoin or follow what they say, you >will have no power because you >are not a member...

Canada left the IWC because they were upset that the anti-ehaling nations used bribes to vote in the Moratorium. Norway and Iceland refuse to recognize the moratorium and have been commercially hunting since 1986. Any of these countries being hit with sanctions?

Killing of the oceans by yakuza fishermen must be stopped. They care about nothing but their pockets.

This country is so childish on this matter. I feel ashamed for them.

Same here. They say they can't quit not becuase it would look like giving in. This is same as admiting that the only reason they are killing these animals is becuase how it would look. Pride Japan, it has proved itself to be false ambition. Let go, make people of the earth happy. Let these magnificent creatures live.

i'm for letting japan whale if they like. controlled of course. but, comparing putting sanctions on japan compared to norway or iceland is useless . iceland, with a population of just over 300,000 & norway with under 5 mill, just don't have much to worry about in the way of trade sanctions. & the world knows this which i imagine is why they are basically ignored pertaining to whale hunting .japan, on the other hand, has 130 mill. people. exports & imports numerous products. sooo, it'll probably be a while b4 you hear anyone complaining about norway & iceland. just further proof it's mainly about politics & notoriety . which country can we hurt most with sanctions & also get air time.? ok. let's go get em!

the rabid anti-whaling crowd

The 'rabid anti-whaling crowd' as you put it are a vast minority of the people opposed to whaling. Similarly, the rabid pro-whaling crowd is a vast minority of the people involved in this debate. You are doing yourself absolutely no favours by lumping all people opposed to whaling into the SS camp. I fully support Japan's right to whaling but am quite opposed to sending ships all the way to the southern hemisphere... From what I have been reading on the topic there are quite a few people who share a similar position as me.

You see everything in black and white but are blind to shades of grey... The whaling debate is much more complex then simply anti-whaling vs. pro-whaling.

The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll stop marginalizing your own position.

Japan's membership in the IWC is the only thing protecting them. If Japan does leave the IWC and resume unmonitored commercial whaling the international condemnation and backlash will be devastaing to this small island with no natural resources. Japan needs to stay in favor with the rest of the world much more than the world needs a childish bunch of egocentric megolamaniacs blatantly disregarding the opinions of the rest of the world.

OssanAmerican. Fantacy can quickly become reality when countries decide to act. Just look at how quickly China broke hundreds of years of tradition when they added military vessils to the anti-piracy fleet.

It is likely that growing global calls for environmental protection will sooner or later catch up with Japan. What is needed now are countries willing to enforce regional protections. And I think domestic demand for this in many countries is on the rise.

Change happens mate, get ready for it.

Japan is considering withdrawing from the International Whaling Commission if no progress is made toward easing an international ban on commercial whaling

Does it REALLY matter what the heck the commission decide? If they agree on a limit of 50; japan will cull 200+ over the limit. If they decide on a limit of 500; Japan will harvest the ocean and catch 200+ over the limit. If they decide to ban it altogether; Japan will continue on their merry way with their (cough cough) scientific research by culling any amount they want. Japans thinking is simple; its my way or its my way.

awesome 2 cents tkoind2.

Japans thinking is simple; its my way or its my way.

Its like when my mates and family back home ask about Japan, the wife and this whole thing. "How's Japan?" its always the same simple answer. "stubborn"

The International Whaling Commission's raison d'etre is to manage and regulate the whaling industry. It is not a "whale protection organization".

Good stuff, as usual, Ossan. I would just like to clarify the above point. The IWC is a whale protection organization in the sense that its purpose is to promote susatainable whaling. This means promoting whaling of species whose populations are numerous and protecting species whose populations are low. It's not conservation for the sake of conservation, it's conservation for the sake of industry. But still conservation.

Sounds like the League of Nations all over again, and we all know how that one ended...

"... the international condemnation and backlash will be devastaing ..."

And which countries, aside from maybe a pre-general election Australia, do you think might bother with any sort of backlash?

(I'm from Canada and I'm pretty sure the Canadian government wouldn't even blink.)

I think any "backlash" would just be handfuls of protestors in front of Japanese embassies in a large number of first world countries. Nothing at a government level.

I am with taj.

Japan & whaling issue is not a big enough deal nor important enough to justify sanctions, which quiet likely could also hurt the countries imposing them.

taj is right, nobody cares, including me.

Nobody cares? Would these nobodies be the millions of people worldwide who have been doing everything they can to conserve the whale and fish populations? Make no mistake, this issue is much bigger than most people see from their PC screens and will go much further than a bit of name calling.

Japan threatening to overturn the chess board after their opponent makes a few choice moves.

Great philosophy. When everyone disagrees with you, just quit! Now if someone from SMAP was against whaling or if Beat Takeshi got in one of his pink costumes with a red, plastic hammer and said something, then, and only then might Japan reconsider its position.

my2sense at 10:48 AM JST - 16th June

Its like when my mates and family back home ask about Japan, the wife and this whole thing. "How's Japan?" its always the same simple answer. "stubborn"

Quite a negative view on Japan AND YOUR WIFE isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Japan's not hunting any endangered whales, so what's wrong with a country trying to stand up for itself?

...lol...so by quitting they are in fact admitting its due to the ban on commercial whaling...

which means they are whaling commercially and not for research

Who cares???? They are not even endangered. Manage with quotas. The demand is not that high for whale meat here. Go out with Japanese almost everynight here, they have ordered it 1 time.

Its a non-endangered whale...big deal. People want to eat them, let them. Regulate with quotas.

They are not even endangered. Manage with quotas.

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on the whaling debate, just because there are so many facets, but I can say with certainty that Japan has killed endangered species of whales for research, including Sei whales and blue whales. I believe a piece of blue whale meat turned up at Tsukiji recently, too.

I support the IWC proposal.

Commecrial whaling(controlled) with a lower take number than the current researh catch.

If Japan does leave the IWC there won't be any catch-quotas and no controlling of their catches as they won't be anymore under IWC rules.

By quitting the IWC, Japan is putting itself on par with countries like North Korea.

When NK hears something it doesn't like, it pulls out. Sounds like Japan is doing the same thing.

Wow, racism against Japan? Bunch of cry babies... other countries stick to coastal whaling, and Japan? Nope! Gotta go to antartica to get their whales... What a bunch of crybabies, and now they are using every trick in the book to support it's shady whaling industry. Japan, stick to your own waters, and I swear, you will not receive nearly as much flak as you are now. What a bunchof crybabies!

"I believe a piece of blue whale meat turned up at Tsukiji recently, too."

I missed that article. Would appreciate a link.

I also haven't seen that Blue has ever been on the research quota list, but then, I don't follow as closely as many people here.

What I do know is that the meat left over after the organs, and whatever bits are used for testing MUST BE USED by IWC rules. That means people food, pet food, biofuel, or something.

Japan: world's biggest whiners and self-proclaimed victims, once again threatening to quit this or that if they don't get their way. I guess they haven't been paying for enough call-girls to sway the votes their way.

I for one am glad that Yamada has budget concerns on his mind. When the Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister declines to attend a major international conference regarding agriculture, forestry or fisheries, that would be fairly deemed dereliction of duty. Fortunately, this concerns none of his portfolio; it concerns whaling.

Perhaps PM Kan could appoint a Minister of Whaling?

Quite a negative view on Japan AND YOUR WIFE isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Japan's not hunting any endangered whales, so what's wrong with a country trying to stand up for itself?

OK buddy, thx for your life wife advice.

thundercat at 10:13 AM JST - 16th June The 'rabid anti-whaling crowd' as you put it are a vast minority of the >people opposed to whaling.

Agree.

Similarly, the rabid pro-whaling crowd is a vast minority of the people >involved in this debate.

Disageee. JT has been running article after article in cinnection with whaling and a quick look at any of those threads will show that the "rabid" bunch are the most vocal, often repeating the same arguments over and over again.

You are doing yourself absolutely no favours by lumping all people >opposed to whaling into the SS camp.

SS are a different issue entirely. That's a law enforcement vs vigilantism issue.

I fully support Japan's right to whaling but am quite opposed to sending >ships all the way to the southern hemisphere... From what I have been >reading on the topic there are quite a few people who share a similar >position as me.

Unfortunately the debate has become so polarized over the course of the year, with the media, "conservationist groups" now on the bandwagon, that few if any people realize that the IWC proposal will actually save a great number of whales AND close the loophole. The anti-whaling side ignores the benefits and calls it a "return to commnercial whaling". Rational positions, such as what you suggest, have lost their ground as the mantra now has become "no whales must be killed period".

You see everything in black and white but are blind to shades of grey... >The whaling debate is much more complex then simply anti-whaling vs. pro->whaling.

That I am advocating the IWC proposal should be evidence that I do not see things in black and white, that the IWC proposal is indeed a compromise and all parties need to be prepared to give and negotiate, lest we completely abandon management of the world's whale population.

The sooner you realize that the sooner you'll stop marginalizing your >own position.

Marginalizing is hardly a concern to me when only a handful of people appear to have even read the IWC propsal and thought about which is better for the whales.

Nessie at 10:55 AM JST - 16th June The International Whaling Commission's raison d'etre is to manage and >regulate the whaling industry. It is not a "whale protection >organization". Good stuff, as usual, Ossan. I would just like to clarify the above >point. The IWC is a whale protection organization in the sense that its >purpose is to promote susatainable whaling. This means promoting whaling >of species whose populations are numerous and protecting species whose >populations are low. It's not conservation for the sake of conservation, >it's conservation for the sake of industry. But still conservation.

Thanks Nessie, you are of course absolutely correct. Far too may people do not understand the difference between Conservation and Preservation.

ratpack at 10:40 AM JST - 16th June Does it REALLY matter what the heck the commission decide? If they agree >on a limit of 50; japan will cull 200+ over the limit. If they decide on >a limit of 500

By that reasoning, why should we have any laws at all since we know that a certain number of people are going to break them? If you read the IWC propsal you would have known that close Monitoring and DNA categorizing by the IWC of the whales take is part of the package. Besides, why would Japan remain in the IWC, agree to some negotiated proipsal, then break the rules when it would be far more expedient to just quit the IWC and do whatever they felt like without answering to anyone?

tkoind2 at 10:31 AM JST - 16th June OssanAmerican. Fantacy can quickly become reality when countries decide >to act. Just look at how quickly China broke hundreds of years of >tradition when they added military vessils to the anti-piracy fleet. It is likely that growing global calls for environmental protection will >sooner or later catch up with Japan. What is needed now are countries >willing to enforce regional protections. And I think domestic demand for >this in many countries is on the rise. Change happens mate, get ready for it.

With the number of shared global concerns from nuclear proliferation, terrorism, global economies to oil spills, I'm not going to hold my breath. As I said, nice fantasy.

Disillusioned at 10:29 AM JST - 16th June Japan's membership in the IWC is the only thing protecting them.

Actually, it may be the only thing protecting the whales.

If Japan does leave the IWC and resume unmonitored commercial whaling >the international condemnation and backlash will be devastaing to this >small island with no natural resources.

Even Australia doesn't want to risk damaging economic relations with Japan. Let's try to be realistic.

Also with the new IWC proposal Norway & Iceland might rejoin the IWC.

Granted the proposal don't suit the SSCS and the guys that want NO whales killed but at the moment I think it would solve the majority of problems while also protecting the whales.

Well I'm happy to see Japan grow a backbone but couldn't it be over something more useful. Withdrawing from the IWC will just bring international condemnation.

Good move, Japan. IWC is no longer the original International Whaling Commission. Now is more like a International Anti-Whaling Commission.

"Canada withdrew from the IWC in 1982. In those instances where Canada issued whaling licenses, it did so without consulting the IWC. In fact, Canada's 1996 actions were directly contrary to IWC advice. At the 1996 Annual Meeting, the IWC passed a resolution encouraging Canada to refrain from issuing whaling licenses and to rejoin the IWC. However, Canada has recently advised the United States that it has no plans to rejoin the IWC and that it intends to continue granting licenses for the taking of endangered bowhead whales." - Bill Clinton, 1997

http://www.highnorth.no/library/Trade/GATT_WTO/th-us-do.htm

Quick! Someone get 100 more call-girls!! They're gonna be working overtime for the next 3 months!

Gaijinocchio - Quick! Someone get 100 more call-girls!! They're gonna be working overtime for the next 3 months!

It's good to see that Bill Clinton is dating again.

So Eric Cartman is giving advice for our foreign policy now! "Screw you guy's, I'm going..."

Ossan it is nice to see you are interested in conservation now! So then if the IWC does not allow commercial whaling then you would be in support of Japan ending its hunts, & abiding by the IWC rules then? Because that is why they are doing it, for conservation. Or are you saying Japan should leave & do whatever it wishes? & would that not open another can of worms? To leave the IWC & hunt commercially in a designated sanctuary! I think that would give SSCS more justification for action!

Ossan, & as for killing less whales under new regulations Japan does not abide by current ones! So why would the world believe we would abide by new ones? Secondly as for numbers killed, lets look at actual figure killed in Antarctic waters for a start; last year just over 500, similar the year before, etc, etc, under the new proposal Japan is demanding at least 800. As far as my understanding of maths goes 500 is less than 800, so just how is this reducing numbers killed?

Secondly if you were so concerned about conservation you would know Sei, or Fin whales, Humpbacks, & Sperm whales are endangered species as listed by CITES, yet Japan hunts them! So as someone who is so interested in conservation would you not be outraged by this, & want it to end?

Ossan, you keep claiming it is simply Australia trying to ruin Japans fun, but here is some more proof of other nations willing to halt whaling, Japanese or other wise;

"The German parliament has declared that in order to be granted EU membership, Iceland must stop whaling"

From; http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=40764&ew_0_a_id=363870

I guess that also shows how EU nations will be voting at the upcoming IWC meeting, not just Australia...

Japan should quit as they of course lie about maintaining the IWC regulations. If Japan is going to hunt whales for mercury laced food that nobody eats or cares about let them do it openly and without a stupid research excuse. Then the criminality and outright corruption involved in the rightwingers whale fixation will be crystal clear.

98 percent of Japanese do not care about whaling and do not eat whale. Only the guys in black vans make this an issue.

KeikoTokyo - To leave the IWC hunt commercially in a designated sanctuary! I think that would give SSCS more justification for action!

The eco-terrorist SS DO NOT have any legal authority now to harrass, attack and injure the whalers. Watson and Bethune simply make up whatever 'justification' they think their naive volunteers will accept. Watson has already convinced his inexperienced crews that they are expected to DIE for him. He's going to get his wish someday.

Here I have to agree with arrestpaul.

SSCS has no LEGAL or other authority to hassle the Whalers, this don't change if you are pro or anti-whaling.

They got LEGAL authority to prostest but that don't include throwing stuff, using ropesto foul a ship's screw, etc.

Same way the makers of the Cover have NO authority to demand anything of Japan.

Same way Greenpeace has very little legal authority for what they do.

Agreeing with someones action don't give them authority.

Japan’s whaling program includes large-scale scientific expeditions to the Antarctic, while other whaling countries mostly stay along their coasts. Opponents call Japan’s scientific research hunts a cover for commercial whaling.

The bottom line is that Japan needs to provide an ample evidence that they conduct whaling for scientific "research," if they insist it is ethical and legitimate practice, whether it is conservationist or utilitarian perspective. By scientific, I mean, empirical/analytical study of whales from the academic and scholastic interests of researchers and academic professionals. Japan really needs to better articulate their necessities to defend their positions on whaling practice, since most opponents criticize them for justifying their hyper-consumptive culture through the ethos of cultural tradition.

amerijap - The bottom line is that Japan needs to provide an ample evidence that they conduct whaling for scientific "research," if they insist it is ethical and legitimate practice, whether it is conservationist or utilitarian perspective. By scientific, I mean, empirical/analytical study of whales from the academic and scholastic interests of researchers and academic professionals.

Would you be willing to accept the word of the government of Australia? They seem to think that the 'scientific research' being done by the IWC's Scientific Committee has been successful and is required to properly manage whale populations.

http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC60docs/IWC-60-16.pdf

zurcronium at 11:39 AM JST - 18th June Japan should quit as they of course lie about maintaining the IWC >regulations.

Actually they are not lying because they are in full compliance with the IWC rules. Even the paret about eating the whalemeat.

98 percent of Japanese do not care about whaling and do not eat whale. >Only the guys in black vans make this an issue.

The first sentence is true. The second is not.

I don't see any problem with their use of language in proposal, as long as they can clarify the difference between commercial whaling and the scientific studies of cetaceans. Otherwise, their legal action against Japan doesn’t make any sense to me at all. The problem with IWC’s moratorium stems from lack of definition on scientific research apart from commercial whaling, which makes its entire practice utterly incomprehensible. Due to such ambiguity and Japan’s widely-known international reputation (as the 2nd largest economy in the world), Japan’s practice of whaling is under scrutiny.

how come they quit all the things that stop them from stopping rather than just quitting what they're doing instead?

stay, leave... doesnt matter. ppl will still whale hunt regardless. market = buyers = money for sellers.

ammerijap;"The bottom line is that Japan needs to provide an ample evidence that they conduct whaling for scientific "research," if they insist it is ethical and legitimate practice, whether it is conservationist or utilitarian perspective. By scientific, I mean, empirical/analytical study of whales from the academic and scholastic interests of researchers and academic professionals."

So what you mean is, if Japan provides 1 boat, with 2 international observers to count, while that same boat reports back to the Japanese hunting vessels the position of prey, that it should be considered helping research?

Keiko Tokyo >So what you mean is, if Japan provides 1 boat, with 2 international observers to count, while that same boat reports back to the Japanese hunting vessels the position of prey, that it should be considered helping research?

Question 1: What is your definition of "international observers"? Question 2: Would it be considered "ethical" if these people had close connections with wholesale fisheries and profit-oriented whaling companies? Question 3: Are you suggesting that Japan send research ships to Antarctica and elsewhere for only commercial whaling?

amerijap; my definition of international observers is the same as the IWC, must be 2 minimum on a boat.

2, all the crew on the Japanese boat, apart from the 2 observers were directly connected to the whaling fleet, which was operational at the time, on board the Shonan Maru 2

3, yes that is what the rest of the world & I am saying, & has been for years. Japan's whaling industry has hidden under the skirt of the IWC stating 'scientific research' for years. The rest of the world no longer accepts it as it is a blatent lie. If Japan now chooses to leave the IWC under who's skirt are they going to hide behind to justify our actions? Are we simply going to say to the rest of the world we do not care, we are just going to hunt in a designated sanctuary, & act as poachers?

Question 3: Are you suggesting that Japan send research ships to Antarctica and elsewhere for only commercial whaling?

That has to be a joke right?

KeikoTokyo,

There is plenty of evidence that Japan's programme has been benefiting cetacean management research, you are clearly just not capable of recognising it.

How can you make such grand claims about something without knowing anything about it?

Australia is taking Japan to court. Your time to learn in great detail about the research will come at that time. I'm sure the Japanese will have a comprehensive and overwhelming amount of evidence to present, contrary to Australia's politically motivated claims.

3, yes that is what the rest of the world & I am saying, & has been for years. Japan's whaling industry has hidden under the skirt of the IWC stating 'scientific research' for years.

It hasn't been hidden at all, it's been sanctioned. Right now the IWC is working to end "Scientific whaling". I trust you are supporting the IWC proposal then?

The rest of the world no longer accepts it as it is a blatent lie.

It doesn't make any difference to anyone, and certainly not the whales, whether it's a blatant "lie" or not. As long as it fulfills the IWC requirements it is "legal".

If Japan now chooses to leave the IWC under who's skirt are THEY going >to hide behind to justify OUR actions? Are WE simply going to say to the >rest of the world WE do not care, WE are just going to hunt in a designated sanctuary, & act as poachers

Firstly, it's pretty obvious to the rest of us that you have been and continue to pretend that you are Japanese. Which is fine, do what you want. But could you please use "they" and "we" on a consistent basis so as not to make your statement confusing? Secondly, IF Japan left the IWC it would be under no obligation to follow any rules or regulations, and that would include recognizing any "sanctuaries" in international waters. Thirdly, they wouldn't be "poaching" because they would be hunting outside the jurisdiction of the IWC and any legal jurisdiction.

KeikoTokyo:

3, yes that is what the rest of the world & I am saying, & has been for years. Japan's whaling industry has hidden under the skirt of the IWC stating 'scientific research' for years.

Do opponents have enough evidence to prove that Japan has been violating the IWC commission for over 20 years? Would Australia be able to win the case at the court with current IWC's policy??

If Japan now chooses to leave the IWC under who's skirt are they going to hide behind to justify our actions?

Currently, the IWC has no authority to prosecute the nations for whaling, because they are definitely NOT the legal enforcement you assume. They can make their own investigations on Japan's tracking records of whaling, but they are NO federal grand jury (in the US) who has the power to indict the suspects and cheaters at the best convenience.

Are we simply going to say to the rest of the world we do not care, we are just going to hunt in a designated sanctuary, & act as poachers?

Who are "we"? Ordinary Japanese living in Japan or anywhere on this planet?? Guess how many environmental activists do "we" have in Japan, in comparison to Europe and the North/South America???

With what's going on this week in Agadir Morocco, it's probably best to cease debating about this since by next Friday the whole gameboard may have changed.

The IWC is meant to be a commission for whaling countries.

It obviously isn't.

Whaling countries should set up a new international whaling commission, with engaging in whaling a prerequisite to membership.

The purpose of such a commission for international whaling should be ensuring the sustainable management of the whalemeat resource. Current whaling members like Japan have been good at following the moratorium recognizing the need to preserve the whale resource for future generations of whalers, so that their children and grandchildren can continue hunting whales like they do.

I believe that nations like Australia that oppose any compromise are actually doing the current IWC a great favor, by highlighting it's pointlessness. Hopefully Japan should realize that it's efforts to reach a compromise are in vain - westerners see whaling like anti-abortionists see abortion: murder, that can never be compromised on. They are wasting everyone's time, so just render them irrelevant, as they are.

Peace

I think Japan should be allowed to kill as many whales as it likes - within Japan's territorial waters. If it is going to venture out in to international waters - it can abide by international rules. What if North Korean (eg) fishing boats surrounded Japan's waters ignored all quota and just pulled whatever they liked out of the sea? You'd be OK with that as long as North Korea had formally withdrawn from any agreements?

members like Japan have been good at following the moratorium

Japan has been lousy at following the moratorium - they signed it and ignored it by keeping whaling. Two-faced and weak. Anybody that thinks Japan's annual hunt is a research exercise is either totally gullible or paid.

＠yelspal

Out side of the EEZ, North Korea and/or any other nations of the world are free to fish as much as they like without need of any consent from Japan. Within the EEZ Japan holds exclusive rights. That is the international agreement of today.

Why should North Korea recognise Japan's "EEZ". Who gave Japan those "rights". Sounds a bit like unacceptable international pressure and an attack on North Korea's traditional right to do whatever the it likes.

@ yelspal

Who gave Japan EEZ rights?

All nations signatory to the UN under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, that is who.

So if North Korea quits the UN - would you be OK with their fishing boats in Tokyo Bay?

I think not. And even if you are - lots of other people would not agree with you.

Japan can withdraw from the IWC; in fact it would be vastly less hypocritical to do so. But, it will not mean the organisations and nations that support the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and whale conservation in general are going to quietly walk away and forget about it.

@yelspal

You really need to do some critical thinking before posting, if North Korean fishing boats enter within 20 nautical miles it will be fired upon by the Japanese Self Defense Force seen as an act of aggression by North Korea. Even if they are caught within the EEZ they will be caught as pirates and be chased and if necessary fired upon. The North Koreans understands this since it is the INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE SEA. On the other hand, the so called Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is a voluntary agreement through IWC within INTERNATIONAL WATERS with clauses to permit catch for SCIENTIFIC research for better understanding of whale stock for better management of whaling quotas which was the initial intention of casting a moratorium sanctuary in the first place.

So IWC is required to lift the moratorium and resume commercial whaling since it had acquired enough scientific data for whale stock management OR continue scientific catch since it does not have the required data to develop a proper quota.

The third option is IWC disband itself since it had swayed off completely for the original intent and purpose of the committee.

Even with caps lock the "international law of the sea" is still just a convention agreed upon between nations. But if NK withdraws from it - does Japan's attitude to their territorial waters change? Not really judging from your rather militaristic scenario above.

Japan can withdraw from the IWC, disband it, pretend to be a functioning member of it - whatever it likes; if whaling ships come down to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary they will be protested. Japan's "right" to whale will be challenged. If 100 people see a garden - and one man sees a toilet - he won't be crapping in peace.

Perhaps the IWC should keep the scientific whaling rule - just prohibit the sale of the meat. I have a funny feeling the urgent need to go all the way down to the Antarctic and kill a thousand whales would evaporate pretty quickly.

Oh Japan, please don't go. Tell you what, how 'bout we bribe you with some call girls and $1K daily spending money?

ha ha dreamland - even Paul'd put out to save the whales - any takers Fisheries Agency of Japan?

The IWC has to come up with a "negotiated" compromise over the issue whaling. A total ban on whaling will never be observed and a return to unregulated whaling will never be acceptable. There has to be some middle ground that most of the IWC membership can agree to or there will be no IWC.

The animal-rights, anti-whaling side needs the IWC. Without it, the WWF, Greenpeace and the rest will be forced to deal individually with every nation that will be involved in whaling, now and in the future. Of course, they'll be able to save a lot of money by not having to "support" many of the IWC delegations that they have been supporting for the last 30 years but their overall costs in manpower and money will go up. Nations don't allow NGO's to dictate national policy the way the IWC has allowed NGO's to influence it's members.