Okada asks Australia to help stop attacks by anti-whalers

Wednesday 23rd September, 04:20 AM JST

NEW YORK —

Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada urged his Australian counterpart Stephen Smith on Tuesday to help prevent violent attacks by activists on Japanese whalers as it stood by the country’s traditional support for whaling, an official said. The two met on the sidelines of U.N. General Assembly.

“During the meeting, Mr Okada called for Australia’s cooperation against groups like Sea Shepherd (Conservation Society), which resort to violent action,” a Japanese foreign ministry official said.

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

Wire reports

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 35 Total Comments Show All

sf2k at 12:43 AM JST - 24th September

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.
Foxie at 01:04 AM JST - 24th September

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.
sf2k at 01:57 AM JST - 24th September

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
MrUSA at 05:58 AM JST - 24th September

"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.
funkymofo at 10:30 AM JST - 24th September

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/ifawunitedkingdom/mediacenter/pressreleases/02082008_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.
MrUSA at 11:18 AM JST - 24th September

funkymofo,

Which states recognize Australia's sovereignty over their Antarctic claim? And what court found Japan guilty?
funkymofo at 03:31 PM JST - 24th September

Mrusa, 1. Do your own research. 2. Have a look at this article on the creation of the whale sanctuary. http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/archive/2006/12/iwastherehowthesouth1.html 3.
funkymofo at 03:34 PM JST - 24th September

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.
funkymofo at 04:54 PM JST - 24th September

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.
MrUSA at 06:11 PM JST - 24th September

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.
funkymofo at 12:06 AM JST - 25th September

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.
nigelboy at 12:38 AM JST - 25th September

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.
funkymofo at 02:47 AM JST - 25th September

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.
MrUSA at 02:59 AM JST - 25th September

"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?
nigelboy at 03:26 AM JST - 25th September

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.