Okada asks Australia to help stop attacks by anti-whalers

why does australia's foreign minister stay tight-lipped regarding the violent attacks against japan's whalers?

Good luck with that! Ha ha . Last two fatalities were caused by Japanese negligence. How about they just stay home in "Safety Japan".

Johnnyreb: cause he knows his constituents support the end of Antartic whaling.

It's funny all this fuss about the whalers, when it's the tuna and trawler boats that are doing the real damage.

"Smith stopped short of replying to the request, only saying Australia wants to resolve the dispute through dialogue to avoid straining relations."

Hang on...

He refused to enter into dialogue on the grounds that he wants to resolve the dispute through dialogue - am I reading that right?

That's just nutty.

wait, did he actually call it whaling or research? Australia could then agree that violent research should be stopped, thus ending the whaling as well. ho ho... Whoops there Japan

Traditional whaling was never in Antarctic waters. How about sticking with the eco attitude and cutting the emissions and help the environment and all that and stop killing whales?

He refused to enter into dialogue on the grounds that he wants to resolve the dispute through dialogue - am I reading that right?

Mmm, no, I don't think so. He stopped short of saying 'OK, we'll rein in Sea Shepherd so that you can continue your lethal 'research' unhindered' and instead said 'Let's talk about stopping the violence by stopping the unnecessary 'research''.

I think.

Okada just went down a notch in my estimation.

global fishing has to take a break anyway. Australia could reply by asking Japan to make Antarctica a UNESCO heritage whale park, thus stopping whaling and solving the Sea Shepard problem.

Otherwise any other agreement with Japan just says Australia support Japanese whaling "research" in this area.

Australia is in a catch-22. One the one hand, it's their own whale sanctuary that is being plundered, but on the other Japan is a huge economic trading partner with all the clout that brings.

Australia owns 48% of Antarctica and the whaling is an illegal invasion of Australian territorial waters. Maybe when the illegal invasions stop we can talk about other things...

This isn't an issue about money, otherwise the world would have killed the whales long ago. Therefore Australia's "no" to Japan is an important signal to say what the electorate feel. How do Australians feel about Japanese whaling or whaling in general?

IF they're against it, it doesn't matter how well the gov't dance, the answer is crystal

Best to mention this now, before Australia gets all cosy and dependent.

As long as the whales being hunted aren't in danger of extinction, and not being hunted in a nation's territorial waters, who cares? They are a great renewable resouce, and chock full of vitamins too!

Any enviro-nuts from Sea Shephard who get in the way of men earning a lawful living are taking their chances. If they get hurt, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Japan has been hunting whales in these international waters ever since they had the capability to build ships that could travel that far. The Australian people are entitled to their own opinions regardless of their reasons. But the Australian government should stay neutral on the issue since the whaling occurs in international waters.

I think those who are against the whale hunt should try whale meat. It's delicious. I love animals as much as anyone else, which is why I feel good eating whale. The methods the hunters use are very humane, and the whales feel very little pain.

Moderator: Readers, please do not rehash the same old arguments on this thread. The topic is Okada's request to Australia.

The methods the hunters use are very humane, and the whales feel very little pain.

Kidding, right?

Moderator: Readers, please do not rehash the same old arguments. Your comments should focus on the new Japanese government's request to Australia.

Australia should not help Japan slaughter whales. In the old days they were needed for food and fuel but times have changed. Japan should respect the territory of another nation if it wants the same in return. Oh would Japan stop trade over this? What a STUPID way to get a bit of whale meat by destroying relations.

"Japan should respect the territory of another nation if it wants the same in return."

You're right, and that's exactly what Japan does. Japanese ships hunt whales in international waters. If it was Australian territory, the Royal Australian Navy would blow up those research ships.

The crew of the research ships have shown remarkable restraint by not fighting back against the pirates of Sea Shepherd. They could easily harpoon a few of these eco-terrorists, but they choose not to. Australia currently condones and supports the violent activists who attack foreign ships in international waters.

They kill whales in an International Whale Sanctuary, Japan is the only country that doesn't recognise the sanctuary. The IWC has repeatedly asked Japan to cease and desist. The Japanese fleet are therefore poaching illegally and deserve everything they get. Do you support ivory poachers in Africa? Same deal. These arguments, as the moderators have suggested have been fully explored in other threads.

Australia should make no attempt to provide assistance to poachers. Were Japan not such a major trading partner of Australia, I'm sure they would pursue the whalers more stridently as they ARE breaking Australian law. This is a large part of the reason the whaling ships are unable to dock in Australian ports. It's also the reason Japan was sending refuelling ships into Antarctic waters- which is also illegal. They were banned from such activity, but I believe the ban runs out this year, so the Japanese may try to do it again this season.

Australia has made it's position clear in allowing Sea Shepherd to use one of it's ports in Tasmania, and allowing safe harbor and passage to the crew. Australian citizens, former members of parliament, and most of the rest of the world that matters (tiny nations bought off by Japanese "development money" don't count) are against it. This is how the Japanese assert some sort of independence, as opposed to taking care of their own defense or economic troubles. A distraction...

Okada's request makes zero sense and is an embarrassment. If Australia recognizes the international whaling sanctuary and Japan does not, then Okada shouldn't be rubbing it in to suggest that Japanese economic ties are relying on Australia's continued capitulation to poaching. He just assured increasing Australian pressure against Japan, not relieving it.

What Okada wants is no more violent attacks on whalers, nothing more. What Sea Shepherd did was piracy and no matter what, it shouldn't be allowed. If they are against whaling, fine, but can't they resolve it in a more peaceful way. Australia shouldn't allow the Sea Shepherd to go out there anymore. Every year it's the same story and no results have been seen.

it's valid enough to say to Japan to stop whaling in a whaling sanctuary then the attacks can stop. Japan doesn't listen though. There is no political will to sanction Sea Shepherd because of local support and quietly politicians agree. They just can't get Japan to cooperate, change, and stop doing bad things any more than anyone else

"I'm sure they would pursue the whalers more stridently as they ARE breaking Australian law."

You don't seem to get it. International waters: Australian law does not apply.

Mrusa,

According to three separate panels of independent, international legal experts (commissioned by IFAW), Japan’s whaling program breaches numerous international laws and treaties including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Antarctic Treaty System, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling.

Source: IFAW http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_united_kingdom/media_center/press_releases/02_08_2008_4484.php

and... Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha's offenses are having "killed, injured, taken and interfered with Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera bonaerensis) and fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) and injured, taken and interfered with humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Australian Whale Sanctuary..."

This landmark ruling proves without a doubt that the Japanese are committing an offence by continuing to operate in the whale sanctuary. Wriggle as they must, the Japanese argue that they do no recognise the sovereignty of the Antarctic waters, the fact remains they have been found guilty in a court of law. As I mentioned before, only Japan doesn't recognise the sanctuary.

funkymofo,

Which states recognize Australia's sovereignty over their Antarctic claim? And what court found Japan guilty?

Mrusa,

Do your own research. Have a look at this article on the creation of the whale sanctuary. http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/archive/2006/12/i_was_there_how_the_south_1.html

Establishment of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was agreed upon by the IWC in 1994 with 23 countries supporting the agreement and only Japan opposing it.

Apologies for the terse reply, but time is short today and your continued attempts to obfuscate the issue prove nothing. The IWC established the sanctuary with a 23-1 majority. It's ridiculous that Japan refuses to comply. The case has been tried and a precedent established. That it is difficult to prosecute does not speak to the legality of Japan's position or it's blatant disregard for international opinion.

23 countries is certainly not a world majority. Nor do the majority of nations recognize Australia's claim to their Antarctic territory. My point is, Japan's whale hunting takes place in international waters, so Australian law does not apply. This isn't about me not willing to do my own research, I just want you to back up your claims with evidence.

The bottom line is, as immoral as Japan's whale hunt is, it isn't illegal. The IWC may consider the area to be a whale sanctuary, but they do allow Japan to hunt a certain amount of whales for research. Japan isn't breaking rules as far as the IWC is concerned.

The IWC is the primary international body for whaling.There are 24 countries in the IWC. Any country can join if it wants to. Out of the 24, 23 voted for the establishment of the whale sanctuary. If your contention is that the international community supports whaling then please provide evidence of your own. Japan voted against it and has refused to honour the agreement. They do not 'allow Japan to hunt a certain amount of whales for research', and if you did in fact do some research of your own, you would see that every single year it specifically and directly instructs Japan to stop the slaughter, calling into question the spurious claims of 'scientific research'. The poachers have been found guilty the only time they were legally challenged. The international community has repeatedly asked Japan to cease and desist from whaling. What further evidence do you need? I wonder whether you offer the same protection to the Sea Shepherd organisation. They've never been prosecuted in any court and have repeatedly challenged the Japanese Government to try. Predictably the Japanese would rather stick to bribing small nations in the IWC, pathetic attempts to pressure the governments of other countries (as in the original article) and utilising loopholes or completely ignoring international conventions. One gets the feeling that a legal battle, with the probable result of opening up the entire operation to severe scrutiny, is the last thing that Japan wants.

funkymofo.

The IWC's purpose is to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry" so the membership as well as establishment of the whale sanctuary in various ocean does not mean the members are against "whaling". In fact, it should be the opposite.

Second, it would help MrUSA if you could find evidence to support that "scientific research" is also banned in these whale sanctuaries.

Also if I may add, the Antarctic Treaty Sytem calls for "not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;" so it appears that the ones who are violating this clause is the one asserting the claim over the territory which is Australia. Hence, I wouldn't put too much weight on the so-called "legal" experts hired by International Fund for Animal Welfare.

The IWC's purpose is to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry

The member nations have voted to create the Southern Whale Sanctuary and support a moratorium on whaling. Japan ignores both.

...evidence to support that "scientific research" is also banned in these whale sanctuaries.

Scientific research is not banned. The 'scientific research' carried out by the Japanese Government as a cover for commercial whaling is and has been actively discouraged by the IWC.

I wouldn't put too much weight on the so-called "legal" experts hired by International Fund for Animal Welfare.

You may be right, but I'll defer to their legal opinion rather than yours, thanks.

"If your contention is that the international community supports whaling then please provide evidence of your own."

Obviously the world doesn't support whaling, and nor do I. My argument is that Japan's whale research is not unambiguously illegal.

"I wonder whether you offer the same protection to the Sea Shepherd organisation."

I don't agree with the whalers or Sea Shepherd. But Japan's whale research is legal, and Sea Shepherd's piracy is probably not.

"The poachers have been found guilty the only time they were legally challenged."

When and where?

Sorry funkymofo.

The problem with your argument is that you view the current "scientific research" by Japan as "whaling" even though under the current guideline set by ICRW and specifically article 8, it allow all kills but the sale of them as well.

Whale sanctuary applies to moratorium on "commercial whaling. " Scientific research (lethal or non-lethal) should be continued irregardless of the moratoriam as set forth also in article 8.

So legally, Japan hadn't "ignored both" as you claim.