David @ Tokyo

David and all,
Do you know this ?

In a 1999 incident involving the same two ships and same two captains , Lloyd's ( the publication of record) listed the whalers as at fault.

Ann
 

Excerpt from High North Alliance website, that I always find interesting:
" ... But at the end of the day , we do not think there will be a lasting majority change. We think the anti-whalers will block it, perhaps not this year, but at the latest next year."

http://www.highnorth.no/read.asp?which=363

Ann
 

Hi Ann,

I'm not sure which 1999 incident you are refering to.

As to the particular incident regarding Greenpeace in my original post, I think the IWC will leave the world in no doubt as to who was at fault. I wouldn't be surprised if Australia also joins in the criticism (or abstains from any resolution). I can't see Australia defending Greenpeace's behavior, after previously criticising them in the media.

I also enjoy the High North's commentary. I think it's too early to tell what will happen though. I'm wondering how many anti-whaling nations will decide to cut their loses and start to cooperate with the pro-sustainable use nations, to ensure the best conservation outcomes can be had.

At the end of the day, one thing that all nations can agree on is that nobody wants to see whale stocks depleted. This commonality will hopefully become a starting point for future cooperation
 

Oh, I see, I didn't realise that there had been two previous incidents between these two vessels.

I'm not aware of the details of the 1999 incident, and maybe the Nisshin Maru was technically at fault.

What I do know though, is that the Nisshin Maru is in the Antarctic region for the purposes of hunting whales, and Greenpeace is there for the purposes of their propaganda campaigns. I'm in no two minds about which party is trying to cause incidents that will make world headlines.

As the recent ICR video footage shows, Greenpeace did not do everything they could have to avoid collision, but they did do everything they could to try to find an excuse for saying the Japanese vessel was at fault for what happened.
 

Yesterday,I found an article of the Yomimuri Shinbun on whaling.

The editor reported a small village of Normay whose people
are living on whaling (mainly
whaling of Minke whales).

The summary of the article is as follows;

In 1993,Norway rejected the decision of IWC and it started the commercial whaling,when the press of anti-whaling countries rushed to the village and anti-whaing NGOs
harassed them,chasing the whaling boats.

Inspite of the aspects,a family (of an old man and woman) welcomed the press and answered some questions.

After the press returned,the family
was terribly shocked to see the TV program (BBC). The title was" The barbarous people are catching the sacred whales!"

Afterwards,the family said to the editor, "As the time passed,the press and the NGOs seldom visited the village.The peace was back.Probably they understand our situation,i.e, the sustainable use of marine resources."

At the end part of the article,the editor let the readers know the IWC starts June 16 this year.
He is expecting to get much after the conference.

...............................

>Greenpeace themselves are also predicting that they will be stripped of their IWC observer status when the plenary meeting begins this Friday. I expect this, and more.<

David-san,I expect this,too!!
This is very very interesting.

Thanks.

Y/H
 

I'm surprised there's been no legal action taken, after the collision between Arctic Sunrise and Nishin-maru on 8January2006.
Is ICR considering Legal action?
 

I've seen no news of direct legal action to address the issue, however the Government of Japan is working at the IMO to have guidelines established with respect to a code of conduct for protest vessels. The IMO has apparently agreed to introduce such a code some time this year. The content of the code remain to be seen, but I imagine it will recognise the right of ships to protest, but (hopefully) make it clear that they should, for example, keep a safe distance away from the vessels at all times and so forth, not graffiti all over their ships etc.
 

ICR's claim to victimhood is as bogus its not peered reviewed "research." Between GP and ICR, I go with professional independent investigators. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/article.cfm?o_id=600588&objectid=10363349&ref=imthis