David @ Tokyo

Ian Campbell's on/off love affair with the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was on display once again in the media today, with Senator Campbell, who Sea Shepherd last month described as "honourable", now declaring that:

"Sea Shepherd are bringing the cause of whale conservation into disrepute.''

Presumably Campbell has realised that it was politically unwise to call Paul Watson and wish him well, particularly since in other parts of the world such as the United Kingdom and Belize, officials there were seeing it fit to strike the Sea Shepherd terrorist vessel (what else is a vessel with a "can opener" ramming implement attached to it?) from their registers.

Despite today's clarification, I wonder if Campbell would still welcome Sea Shepherd vessels to Australia's Antarctic bases in anything other than an emergency?

Stupidly, however:

Senator Campbell praised the more peaceful efforts of Greenpeace in recording the "gutless'' whale slaughter and using small vessels to disrupt the hunt, saying the group's efforts had his blessing.

Campbell would do well to stick to his own policies, rather than snuggle up to Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd. Greenpeace's tactics are possibly going to end up on the wrong side of the new IMO guidelines, as well as Sea Shepherd's more overtly unacceptable behaviour.

Anyway, we can again await Watson's reaction, remembering his rather upset tone from last season.


The ICR has another press release out today, this time on public opinion polls. They've too have picked up on the fact that Greenpeace Japan misrepresented the results of an opinion survey that they themselves commissioned. I previously detailed the misrepresentation here, based on a Japanese version of the poll result, but the ICR has helpfully found an English translation (here for those who care to take a look).

The ICR also states that:

"Whalemeat is a popular meal choice by the Japanese public despite a drastic decrease in supply and, contrary to claims by Greenpeace, demand is increasing each year."

This basic trend is of course what we've been observing through stockpile figure analyses (November figures should be out any day now, maybe on the 12th)

Labels: eco-terrorism, Ian Campbell, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, Sea Shepherd

No confrontation in the Antarctic for at least about another week it seems:

... activists from the group Sea Shepherd said their two ship navy, which aims to disable the whaling vessels, would reach Antarctic waters and begin to hunt for the fleet in about a week.

There's more detail about the Farley Mowat's piracy paraphernalia as well:

Engineers have fitted a solid steel hydraulic ram with a bulldozer-strength blade to the Sea Shepherd's flagship, Farley Mowat, which has been stripped of its registration in Belize and could now be considered a pirate vessel under international law.

Sea Shepherd's president, Paul Watson, said the "can opener" was operational and far more serious than a version used last year to scrape the side of the Japanese resupply ship, Oriental Bluebird. He said its placement at deck level meant it could damage, but not endanger, the hull of another ship.

He said Sea Shepherd had never caused human injury in its direct actions, and he hoped to inflict just enough damage to a whaling vessel to force it to return to port.

In this day and age, one would hope that a ship with such an implement attached to it would be consider a pirate vessel, regardless of whether or not it was registered.

Apparently the new SS vessel has been named the "Robert Hunter", after one of Watson's late mates.


The Japan Whaling Association has another press release regarding Sea Shepherd's de-registration from Belize's registry.


As for Greenpeace? (Who?)

Greenpeace is also preparing its eighth campaign voyage south, later in the whaling season than ever before.

They've never been less serious about "saving whales" than today, it seems. This season's effort looks to be little more than "us too" tokenism at best, or merely donation attracting video footage generation at worst.

Australia's ABC Local Radio AM programme also has comment from GP's Sarah Holden and ICR spokesman Glenn Inwood, here.

Labels: eco-terrorism, Greenpeace, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, Sea Shepherd

As one would have expected, it's been a quiet Christmas / New Year's break in whaling land (why protest when there is no one watching TV?) but there has been one interesting development.

As I mentioned in my first JARPA II 2006/2007 update, states to which the Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace protest vessels are flagged have a responsibility to take actions with respect to inappropriate behaviour by these vessels.

Subsequently, we learned that Sea Shepherd had struggled to have it's slow Farley Mowat vessel registered in Britain, but had been successful registering with Belize (Belize somewhat famously voted against the pro-sustainable use bloc at the IWC meeting in 2006 on every measure, despite previously having been accused of selling it's vote to Japan by Sea Shepherd and others).

The big news today is that Belize has already taken actions with respect to the Farley Mowat - apparently it has torn up the registration:

Belizean flagged ship de-registered for threatening whalers

It is a common practice for vessels that engage in illegal fishing to be punished by the nation whose flag they happen to fly. But last week, instead of a rogue fisherman being sanctioned it was a ship suspected of engaging in radical environmental action that lost its papers. According to a release from IMMARBE, the International Merchant Marine Registry of Belize, the motor vessel "Farley Mowat" was registered to fly the Belize flag on December fifteenth as a pleasure craft that would also conduct research on the Belize Barrier Reef. Subsequent investigations, however, revealed that the ship was in Australian waters about to embark on an all too familiar mission to ram and otherwise interfere with ships engaged in whaling. The owners of "Farley Mowat" admitted to IMMARBE that the ship would be put on loan to the Sea Shepard Conservation Society, a militant environmental group which since 1979 has engaged in various aggressive actions against the whaling industry, including sabotage and ramming. According to the IMMARBE release, although Belize has voted with the anti-whaling bloc at the International Whaling Commission, it cannot condone acts that threaten life and property at sea. Consequently, the "Farley Mowat" was de-registered by IMMARBE on December twenty-ninth. Although in its early years as a "flag of convenience" registry IMMARBE earned a reputation for laxity, it has recently cleaned up its act to the point where it is one of only nine registries in the world to hold the U.S. Coastguard QUALSHIP 21 certification.

Presumably this once again puts Sea Shepherd in a bit of a pickle - the Farley Mowat is apparently also carrying a helicopter which will be indispensable to them in searching for the whaling fleet, once they arrive in the Ross sea vicinity. Their other newly purchased ship, apparently fast enough to keep pace with the whaling fleet, will be rendered ineffective without a location with which to find the research vessels.

There's no mention of this situation on the Sea Shepherd website yet, but one would not be surprised if Captain Watson gives it a mention, and turns back to his previous accusations of Japanese influence in Belize in light of this. Then again, maybe Greenpeace will again be the subject of Watson's ongoing frustrations.

Labels: Belize, eco-terrorism, IMO guidelines, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, Sea Shepherd, Whaling

Japanese representative Hideki Moronuki has hit the nail on the head with the following statement being reported in the aussie media, with regards to SSCS's openly conceded tactics of vessel ramming:

"The activity is very, very dangerous and whenever you look at the website of Sea Shepherd, they say they haven't killed or injured anybody, but their activities may kill or injure people".

That's completely right.

If Watson thinks his tactics won't harm human life, why does he think the whalers should be worried about his tactics?

Last year he liked to claim that the whalers were "running away" whenever his ship appeared. Wishful thinking? A more accurate assessment would seem to be that the SS flagship was simply to slow to keep up, which is why SSCS have purchased a new vessel for this year.

Another article gives another angle on Watson's tactics:

THE hardline anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd plans to disrupt Japan's summer whaling program in Antarctica by inflicting just enough damage on the whaling vessel to force it to comply with strict Japanese safety regulations and return to port for repairs.

Sea Shepherd's president, Paul Watson, told the Herald yesterday that he had no intention of endangering life. Sea Shepherd activists have sunk 10 whaling vessels in the North Atlantic since 1979. Last summer it tried to foul the propellers of the whaling factory ship Nisshin Maru, the vessel it will soon be chasing.

Of course, SS already tried such things last season, without success (thankfully). What's more, such actions clearly seem to run afoul of relevant international agreements (as the ICR pointed out last year). For example, Article 101 of UNCLOS reads:

Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

Of course I'm sure Watson has some big fancy porkie to excuse himself from this, but I wonder how much longer the officials will be patient.

Watson has also been having other problems:

... the Farley Mowat's departure was delayed over its registration.

Attempts to shift the registration from Canada to Britain had to be abandoned when British authorities refused to allow the ship onto their books.

Captain Watson alleged that the British were told by Greenpeace that his organisation was an eco-terrorist group. He eventually obtained a registration from Belize.

Belize? Depending on how far SS go with their obstruction this year, the Belize IWC representative might be in for an uncomfortable IWC meeting next year. It seems likely that further resolution be passed related to the safety of whale research vessels.

Anyway... As for Greenpeace:

Greenpeace confirmed it was sending one vessel south: the Esperanza, a fast ship that stayed with the fleet for 29 days in 2005-6. Its campaigners, equipped with fast inflatables, cameras and satellite access, opened an unprecedented window into the whalers' activities.

Esperanza left Mexico on December 11 for Auckland, and is unlikely to reach the whaling fleet until late January. Last year whaling ended on March 20.

So only one ship from GP this season (no Arctic Sunrise), and they won't show up until such a point in time that the research fleet will already be a long way towards it's quota. But then, as Watson has charged, Greenpeace appear to be more interested in this for the fundraising opportunity presented than any genuine concern for the environment.

Labels: eco-terrorism, Greenpeace, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, Sea Shepherd, Whaling

What a boring austral summer this is turning out to be.

Tonight we've got more news from the "whale-safe beer" kufuffle.

"Australians are wise enough to make their own decisions as to whether this is a multi-millionaire trying to stoke racism in the Australian community to try to make a buck."

-- Lion Nathon spokesman

Elsewhere, Greenpeace is still trying to deceive the western public about the whale meat consumption trends here in Japan. According to Greenpeace:

it's clear that they don't have a high demand since more and more whale meat is getting stockpiled.

As readers of this blog know, consumption has actually increased by more than 50% since 2004. Greenpeace is however a "campaigning" organization, not an educational organization. They must campaign to continue to raise funds, and they must raise funds to continue to campaign. More silliness:

There doesn't appear to be any logical explanation why the Japanese government supports whaling on the high seas and since the majority of the Japanese public are also against it - isn't it about time they stopped?

Greenpeace draws their own illogical conclusions, which is why they can't understand the Japanese government's position. Meanwhile, readers of this blog also know that it's an outright lie that the majority of the Japanese public "are against" whaling.

Finally, Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace are busy whinging at each other (see here and here). Greenpeace is still not even anywhere near the Antarctic, and doesn't plan to be there until sometime into the New Year. The most likely reason to my mind is that last year they wasted lots of valuable media time in the Antarctic over the Christmas / New Year's period. It's hard to get media attention at this time as everyone is on holiday (that's why we saw them ram the Nisshin Maru on January 8th last year).

Labels: eco-terrorism, Greenpeace, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, Sea Shepherd, whale safe beer, Whaling

There is an interesting Japanese language news report in the media tonight.

"IMO 82nd MSC - agreement on the creation of a code of conduct to ensure safety from whaling protest activity", says the headline at Environmental Information and Communication Network:

At the 82nd meeting of the International Martime Organization's (IMO) Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) held in Istanbul from 2006/11/29 until 12/8, it was agreed to create a non-legally binding, voluntary "code of conduct" in relation to ensuring the safety of crew and ship navigation for vessels involved in offshore operations that become the focus of protest activity.

The dangerous obstruction activity that was carried out for 4 weeks from December 2005 to January 2006 against Japan's JARPA fleet engaged in scientific research is behind this "code of conduct".

At the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in June 2006, this issue was raised and a resolution was adopted calling for member nations to take measures in accordance with IMO guidelines to ensure the safety of vessels engaged in whale and whaling related research. However, it was later recognized that the IMO has no appropriate guidelines in place corresponding to this resolution, and consequently Japan proposed the creation of the "code of conduct".

The MSC's Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation (NAV) will consider the proposed "code of conduct" and aim to have it adopted by the MSC. (Fisheries Agency).

Again, the relevant IWC Resolution 2006-2 is here.

The Fisheries Agency press release on the topic adds further detail, noting that the proposal "received strong support from member nations and related international organizations, and the creation of a code of conduct (non-legally binding and voluntary) was agreed by consensus."

For those who read Japanese, the original EIC article is here, and the Fisheries Agency's release is here.

Elsewhere, the Japanese Whaling Association has issued a press release regarding Ian Campbell's alleged ties to Sea Shepherd, after they boasted on their homepage that they had received a call of support from the Senator.


UPDATE: According to the IMO webpage the next meeting of the Sub-Committee on Safety of Navigation (NAV) is set for 23-27 July 2007, so this "code of conduct" won't be in place this summer. Of course, because it is voluntary Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace may choose to ignore it anyway, although they'll probably find themselves antagonising their respective flag states.

Labels: eco-terrorism, Ian Campbell, IMO guidelines, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, Whaling

There's been a lot of discussion surrounding potential violence against the ICR research fleet in the Antarctic by groups such as Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, which led to the IWC adopting Resolution 2006-2, the "Resolution on the safety of vessels engaged in whaling and whale research-related activities" at this year's IWC meeting.

However, while concerned about the possibility of further violence and intimidatory actions against the ICR research fleet in the Antarctic this austral summer, I think there is far greater cause for concern regarding Japanese citizens residing in Australia.

Why? This beer advertisement:


This, in my opinion (story here), demonstrates that the Australian authorities need to tone down their emotional anti-whaling rhetoric, and be very very careful to monitor the situation and not themselves contribute towards incitement of racially based violence on Australian soil.

In light of this distasteful campaign, were I Japanese I would be extremely careful about myself if I were in Australia over the coming summer, whether that be at the pub or down on the beach. The combination of alcohol and the hysteria in Australia surrounding the whaling issue makes me extremely fearful of the possibility of racially motivated violence being born out of this situation.

It was only last year that Sydney experienced major riots related to racial tension.

I do not wish for this advertisement campaign to backfire against Australia or the unjust anti-whaling campaign for fear of the possibility that it might come at the cost of an innocent human being getting seriously injured.

I hope that my fears are misplaced.

Labels: eco-terrorism, whale safe beer, Whaling

The Boston Globe online has a nice picture of the JARPA II fleet departure today:


The issue seems to have been covered most heavily in Australia, with an ICR spokesman getting a good amount of press, particularly on the issue of planned obstruction activities:

The institute, which controls the whaling fleet of a mother ship and several catchers, says the protesters are planning illegal activities.

"These groups are breaking the law by interfering with our research and putting the lives of our crew and scientists at risk," the spokesman said.

"Japan's research is perfectly legal conducted under the Whaling Convention.

"The IWC passed a resolution at this year's annual meeting in St Kitts and Nevis condemning Greenpeace's interference with our program and the commission may take action against them if we see a repeat of last year's harassment."

Australia has been at the forefront of efforts to close off loopholes in IWC rules that allow Japan to take whales for scientific research.

"Australia and New Zealand need to get their heads around the fact there is mounting scientific evidence that most whale stocks around the globe can support a limited commercial hunt for food," the ICR spokesman said.

"The world community has woken up to that fact and we are witnessing the last remaining years of an unjust moratorium."

Elsewhere, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that apparently

"the Japanese Government has warned that any protesters who board the fleet will be arrested."

The issue of protester conduct was addressed at IWC 58, resulting in Resolution 2006-2 "Resolution on the safety of vessels engaged in whaling and whale research-related activities", being adopted by consensus.

The resolution notes that the IWC "and Contracting Governments support the right to legitimate and peaceful forms of protest and demonstration", but concludes by agreeing and declaring that "the Commission and its Contracting Governments do not condone any actions that are a risk to human life and property in relation to these activities of vessels at sea, and urges persons and entities to refrain from such acts"

In the past, Sea Shepherd has been "ardently condemned" by the IWC and all its members, for it's "acts of terrorism", and they seem intent on more such reprehensible behaviour (regarded as counterproductive to their cause) this year.

On the other hand, whether the Greenpeace organization wishes to redeem itself after events back in January this year remain to be seen.

Labels: eco-terrorism, Greenpeace, JARPA II 2006/2007 Updates, Whaling

Questions:

1) Say that you might not agree with whaling - but would you support acts of violence against whalers?

2) If you would, how far would you be prepared to take it? Where do you draw the line?

3) If you support people physically attacking whaling vessels, would you also support people attacking anti-whaling vessels?

4) If not, do you have any principles at all?

These are questions that I wish I could pose to the Australian people funding Sea Shepherd, one of whom is quoted in this article:

"I think they're (Sea Shepherd) the most extreme whale-watching group in the world and we've chosen to fund them because we need some action taken on the whales".

"We really need someone to take extreme action to ensure that the whales are protected and kept safe."

"We're really happy to do that and we totally support it."

Australia's government apparently supports the "war on terror". Yet extremist groups that are known for their violent actions are able to receive such levels of support on the Gold Coast?

Some people need to get some perspective.

Labels: eco-terrorism, Whaling