JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-1
davidattokyo
SwissToni,
You'd be incorrect to think I am I someone who cares about what you want to believe. Facts are facts. Blue, humpback, fin, sei whales. All protected prior to the moratorium. The moratorium protected Minke whales though - which number in the hundreds of thousands and can support sustainable harvests in excess of what Japan takes for research purposes.
No it wasn't a direct attack upon Japan, but it was a direct attack upon the spirit of the whaling convention, which has the concepts of sustainable whaling for the benefit of humans at it's core.
I'll not be at the court myself either. I'm just suggesting you'll probably be very disappointed if you get hopes high about Australia's court case.
It is one thing to have an anti-whaling policy. It is an entirely different thing for specific whaling activities to be illegal. Australia having an anti-whaling policy doesn't have any meaning to the legality of whaling activities. Wikileaks essentially revealed that many top Australian officials recognise this too, which leaves one with the impression that pushing ahead with the case was a populist politics move by (the subsequently deposed) Kevin Rudd.
Posted in: Do anti-whaling campaigns backfire in Japan?
3
davidattokyo
Spidapig24,
Definitive numbers of whales are not required for management of whale stocks. Whales are managed using different techniques to land-based animals.
Posted in: Do anti-whaling campaigns backfire in Japan?
3
davidattokyo
SwissToni,
So you may have been led to believe.
In fact all whale stocks that had been over-depleted due to whaling were already protected during the 1960's and 1970's.
What the moratorium achieved was to prevent the sustainable harvest of abundant species of whales such as the Antarctic minke whale, due to purported lack of scientific information (this is why Japan started it's research programme). And that is why the moratorium is symptomatic of an underlying dispute.
I come back to my prior comment - unless both sides go back to the whaling convention - the international agreement - and start afresh from there, there is no realistic chance of this dispute being resolved. Anti-whalers need to get over old history, and everyone else has to accept that over-whaling has to be avoided. Shouldn't be hard to get here, but for some reason it is.
Indeed. I am certainly not in favour of limits being ignored. I am in favour of limits being set and limits being respected. That didn't happen in the past, and that is why some species had to be protected in the 1960s and 1970s.
That does not however justify the subsequent blanket moratorium that was scientifically unjustified and banned harvests of plentiful species.
I've read Australia's opening submission on the ICJ page, and I can't say I think you'll be happy with the likely outcome.
Posted in: Do anti-whaling campaigns backfire in Japan?
-1
davidattokyo
Spidapig24,
As I said, Watson is wrong to declare it illegal (by your own logic of the matter being in "dispute"). Accept it rather than argue it, or otherwise retract your previous statement if you won't stand by it.
Yet I was agreeing with you - as you say it makes no sense for nations to be able to catch as many whales as they like, but that's the status quo that is persisted because the anti-whalers can't bring themselves to acknowledge whaling activities. You already know this as well as I do but you don't like the idea of not being able to bash Japan for catching whales if the IWC sets numbers instead of Japan.
At the very least, if the IWC were setting the numbers, there is a chance that Japan would abide by these rather than continue to independently set it's own numbers. If you really care about whale conservation you should therefore prefer that the IWC set the numbers.
This is solid logic. I imagine that you don't like it though - because it would involve you accepting whaling, which is what you don't want to do. Even though it would be better for whale conservation, if one believes that Japan killing as many whales as it likes is not good.
Definitive numbers are irrelevant. We are talking about whale management - definitive numbers aren't required. Read up about the Revised Management Procedure if you wish to understand why and how. (Whales aren't cows, the management science is completely different)
Gee, that's great. Thanks for sharing that.
Obviously my comment has not sunk in. With this sort of attitude, anti-whalers can never contribute to a solution to this issue. Hence, one can only presume that they are actually happy with the status quo. They get to complain about Japan and thus make themselves feel good for attacking the "dark side".
Posted in: Do anti-whaling campaigns backfire in Japan?
0
davidattokyo
Spidapig24
Again if you want to rehash those off-topic points lets do it over at the old story. I'll be waiting.
Even if you wish to argue this, if it's in dispute then Watson is still not able to declare that it is "illegal". Thus my original point stands. Watson is not the law, and it would appear that he simply makes it up to suit is personal preferences and fund raising strategies.
But you miss the point. I am talking about an approach to resolving the issue from its roots - e.g. starting from scratch. This means going back to prior to the establishment of the sanctuary in 1994, prior to Japan's commencement of research whaling in 1987, prior to the adoption of the moratorium in 1982. All of those things are merely artifacts of the ongoing dispute over whaling.
If the IWC is to ever be relevant and the debate is to be resolved, parties need to go back to basics, which means both sides reading and accepting the whaling convention, and working from there afresh. That means you have to get over past mistakes made by whalers which violated the spirit of the whaling convention, just as I need to get over scientifically baseless moratoriums and sanctuaries that also violated the spirit of the whaling convention.
That's what happens now not because they want it that way, but because the anti-whaling camp refuses to accept whaling and allow the IWC to set catch quotas. Don't you see how backwards this is? Japan is asking only for the IWC to do it's job - if not it will continue to set quotas as it sees fit for research purposes. Theoretically it can catch as many as it likes according to anti-whalers - indeed how intelligent is that you ask. It doesn't need to be that way if the anti-whalers accept the IWC should do the job instead of abdicating it's mandated functions so the Japan has no option but to do it itself.
Posted in: Do anti-whaling campaigns backfire in Japan?
5
davidattokyo
The only way for resolution of this issue is for both sides agree to accept international accepted rules. E.g. international law.
This means that whaling nations need to accept that they must not over-exploit whale resources, they must abide by the rules and take only as many whales as they are allowed.
This means that anti-whaling nations need to accept that although they don't like whaling, it is internationally legal and accepted.
This type of compromise based on a common respect for international law is the only way out.
Posted in: Do anti-whaling campaigns backfire in Japan?
0
davidattokyo
Spidapig24
My comments are directed towards the story which talks of the "scant scientific value" of the research programs.
If you really want to continue our prior discussion why not take it back to the other story and we can have it out there? I won't respond to any of your points that are unrelated to this story here (e.g. such as your sanctuary comments, although you might like to check the whaling convention before lecturing me about it).
Innocent until proven guilty is the standard in first world countries. Unless Australia win at the ICJ, Japan's activities are legal.
It is true that the International Court of Justice has not judged Japan's activities to be illegal. You would be incorrect to claim otherwise.
Posted in: Do anti-whaling campaigns backfire in Japan?
1
davidattokyo
That surely better left to the International Court of Justice to judge (and actual biological scientists)... Even top American officials have admitted under oath that Japan's science is probably the best.
The International Court of Justice has not judged Japan's activities to be illegal. Watson is making it up (as usual). It's interesting that Watson's terror outfit finds itself with a ship held up in British courts due to damage they caused to tuna Maltese fishing operations last year. Watson seems to have a problem accepting that he isn't the one who decides what is and isn't legal.
One wonders then why he agreed to appear on Japanese TV show answering questions to Watanabe battle-field cameraman at the top of July... (and got pasted thoroughly in the process). Perhaps he did so to assist in stirring up further anti-Sea Shepherd sentiment so as to prolong the conflict which Watson has created?
Well Australia and friends flatly refuse to accept such a deal so how he can claim it's a possible compromise is beyond me.
Furthermore the idea is silly from a conservation perspective, as the whales don't obey national coastal waters. They don't even know they exist. Whether one catches a particular whale while it's in your national coastal waters or while it's outside your national coastal waters makes no difference.
Posted in: Do anti-whaling campaigns backfire in Japan?
-2
davidattokyo
Basically you want to say that to your mind, large scale industrial whaling (which involves producing the best science available) is equivalent to illegal commercial whaling, right?
Not allowed to call people liars here at JT, and as for me I was only suggesting you are misinterpreting the comments in the document to mean things that they do not.
Oh, maybe you meant "shown this to", rather than "shown this too"? Indeed if you meant the former, not the latter, then I can see how you might feel I selectively snipped your comment. But perhaps given that you seemingly mistakenly used "too" instead of "to", you can see how I thought it was snippable.
Did you not mean this? Just sayin'... I'll give you the last say when you answer my question at the top of this comment. Cheers
Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling
1
davidattokyo
Noda will only intervene if the yen spikes higher quite rapidly, IMO. E.g. maybe a 2.5% move higher in a day would probably trigger solo intervention.
Last year I believe they intervened mostly to show the market that a Kan govt would not be afraid to do so (the market had seized upon some Kan comments perceived as "pro strong yen").
And it took a nasty spike in the yen to all time highs against the buck and other currencies in March to get them to intervene then, with aid from their G7 buds.
IMO they regard a steady rise in the yen against the dollar as having to be tolerated, even if they will voice off about it in an attempt to prevent excess volatility. After all the yen isn't especially strong against other currencies such as the Aussie or Kiwi, it's only against the big basket case currencies (USD, EUR, GBP) that there is yen strength.
Posted in: Noda says Tokyo closely monitoring U.S. debt talks
-2
davidattokyo
This much it says, so what?
You extrapolated this, saying "the US government, their IWC spokespeople all believe Japan is illegally large scale commercial whaling in a sanctuary."
As you can surely see for yourself, you've extrapolating the "large scale industrial whaling" description of the research whaling (which is probably the best science according to Balton) to "illegal commercial whaling".
That wasn't said. You extrapolated it.
Well I for one am pretty sure you extrapolated (presumably since the facts don't support you).
Funny you are also say "even pro whalers agree you are wrong on this one." As far as I could see, this was a ping-pong discussion between you and me. Now you know what "pro whalers" think too, as well as being able to read the mind of US representatives based on statements written in a document that do not say what you claim they say. It's odd, don't you think?
Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling
-2
davidattokyo
Spidapig24,
Those statements were just facts presented to the panel, a) Japan is actually doing research b) thousands of whales could be harvested sustainably.
Those are just facts though - based on those facts what US policy makers decide to do is entirely over to them.
They decide they want to be opposed to whaling and opposed to Japan's useful science programmes anyway - none of that changes the facts. It's all consistent with a US policy that is against whaling conducted by the Japanese. So what? None of that suggests that the US is going to put sanctions on Japan because it disagrees whether whaling is OK or not.
The document is hardly "damning" of Japan, it's a talkfest amongst policy makers with advice from SMEs.
I've not ignored any facts. You seem to have confused US policy decisions with "facts" (just because US policy is against whaling by Japan does not mean it's a fact that Japan's whaling is commercial whaling in disguise, indeed the advice is contrary to that position) and you've also done a whole load of extrapolating about what you believe certain statements made were meant to mean, rather than taking the words at face value.
Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling
0
davidattokyo
I was just watching the John Key / Obama press conference in the Oval office, Obama and Key both (with only initial reports at hand) seem to assume the horrible incident to potential international terrorism too: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5330471/John-Key-meets-Barack-Obama-at-White-House
Perhaps a perverse side-effect of groups such as al Qaeda is that local intelligence agencies take their eyes off the ball (or one of the balls, anyway)?
Posted in: Norway horror: 91 die in camp shooting, 7 in blast
-2
davidattokyo
Spidapig24, if the US really thought that they wouldn't have criticised Australia's ICJ case against Japan the way they did.
(And I think you are really reading the report about the US hearing with the blinkers on - plus there were two quotes in the report that I really like, a) Japan probably has the best science and the admission that Japan does research on the whales killed and b) Medina's admission that 1000s of whales could be caught sustainably, but we've already gone over that enough I think, so we'll have to disagree on what the English language in the document means)
Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling
0
davidattokyo
Terrible stuff for our Norewgian friends to have to go through.
tmarie, there was talk in recent days about possible islamic extremists planning terrorist attacks in Norway in the media, I guess that might have something to do with it. (Of course, if Al Qaeda members were offended then... I don't give a damn anyway.)
Posted in: Norway horror: 91 die in camp shooting, 7 in blast
-3
davidattokyo
Spidapig24,
Just so you know, the conditions required for IWC sanctuaries include the following:
Taking zero of a potential harvest of thousands of whales is obviously not optimum utilization - it is non-utilization.
There's a scientific basis against the sanctuary, but not one for it.
Skipping (c) as it's not relevant to Sanctuaries
Obviously the sanctuary doesn't take this into consideration.
The sanctuary is allegedly illegal, one might say, and certainly not needed.
Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling
-3
davidattokyo
Spidapig24,
That wasn't context. The rest of her quote doesn't change the fact that thousands of whale could be harvested sustainably. She just thinks they shouldn't be because of blah blah blah.
No, that's what I am saying, in addressing her comment.
No she is saying that there is a sanctuary so none of the thousands of whales that could be harvested should be harvested, I am saying that because thousands of whales could be harvested there is no need for a sanctuary.
Balton states quite clearly that Japan probably has the best science.
The research indeed does involve several big ships, if that's what you are getting excited over...
Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling
-1
davidattokyo
or at least impose sanctions.
Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling
-3
davidattokyo
Oh I found a bit about sanctions:
"Ambassador BALTON. ... the United States, at least, has never been willing to impose any meaningful sanctions for whaling activities. There is a statute on the book, the Pelly Amendment, and I am sure you are familiar with it. Countries have been certified under the Pelly Amendment for whaling activities. But if what you are talking about are serious economic sanctions ... At least, if the past is prologue, there has never been a willingness on any administration’s part to use those sanctions."
Seems to prove my original point when I first raised this report, that "the US is unlikely to certify Japan too, under these circumstances" no?
Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling
-3
davidattokyo
Spidapig24,
Oh I must have missed that bit. What did they conclude? All guns blazing with sanctions?
Ah, you said she "blunders out" so it must be true then. Thanks for clearing it up.
I didn't ignore it, I directly addressed it saying that her reasons for stating that are bogus. She herself concedes that a sanctuary isn't necessary because thousands of whales could be caught, but she says that because there is a sanctuary there should be no whaling. It doesn't make sense except perhaps to anti-whalers.
IWC sanctuaries don't apply to research programmes, of which Japan is stated to have probably the best.
Posted in: U.S. threatens Iceland with sanctions over whaling