How Sea Shepherd lost battle against Japan’s whale hunters in Antarctic
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
The slippery slope that it seems the whole world is already sliding down.
I'm curious as to whether the Japanese scientists involved in this "scientific study" actually ever release anything, or does Japan not bother to carry the pretense that far? Or is the contention that their scientists are too incompetent to actually get any useful research out of these oh-so-important hunts?
Whether that is used by the Japanese or not, I don't know.
I share your curiosity regarding the Japanese scientists.
[1] http://www.internationalsecurityinterest.com/index.php/resea...
We should all come together as globsl citizens of this planet and make an agreement on what is safe to capture so we can protect and manage the sea as one international community. Being an outlier and killing these mammals as brutally as it is done is not a position Japan's government and the people who elect that government should be willing to accept.
Whales are mammals [2].
Mammals all possess a neocortex [3]. "The neocortex, also called the neopallium and isocortex, is the part of the mammalian brain involved in higher-order brain functions such as sensory perception, cognition, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning and language." [4] and AFAIK a CNS (Central Nervous System) as well.
Animals are recognized as sentient beings in certain jurisdictions such as Canada and New Zealand, but not world-wide.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness#Mirror_te...
[2] http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2536
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_nervous_system#Mammals
People have tried [1]. It's complicated.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Convention_for_t...
"In addition, the Japanese have provided military tracking hardware to the fleet, according to Sea Shepherd. “Essentially, they can see exactly where we are, but we still only have a rough idea of their position,” said Watson."
Terrorism is an illegal means to an end and its effectiveness is highly debatable. Making it personal is one method which was used by groups such as Weather Underground and RAF. Its debatable whether they were effective (and its debatable whether such is even viable in 21st century police states). One problem with these methods is that civilian casualties make these groups lose the moral highground.
Economic damage specifically however (which can be done via legal, grey, and illegal means) is a method which has proven to work, and in this subject it has worked in the past. It no longer does which means the situation (ie. the extinction of whales) is escalating. The activists need to think of different methods to stop this escalation.
Furthermore, the war is fought on multiple fronts. The ICJ's verdict was also in Sea Shepherd's favor but the wheels of justice grind slowly and it is difficult to maintain justice on the (remote) sea. The main problem IMO is the same problem with issues such as global warming: it is apathy, and a hyperfocus on short-term gain instead of long-term gain. That is to say, if you love eating whale, why not let the whale population grow so that you can continue eating whales?
RAF? I assume it's not the Royal Air Force?
RAF in this context stands for Rote Armee Fraktion aka Baader Meinhof gang. See e.g Wikipedia
The definition of terrorism is defined by Alex P. Schmid - The Revised Academic Consensus Definition Of Terrorism. The website I normally link to is down though, so I'll have to link to [1].
Relevant are:
"6) The main direct victims of terrorist attacks are in general not any armed forces but are usually civilians, non-combatants or other innocent and defenceless persons who bear no direct responsibility for the conflict that gave rise to acts of terrorism;
7) The direct victims are not the ultimate target (as in a classical assassination where victim and target coincide) but serve as message generators, more or less unwittingly helped by the news values of the mass media, to reach various audiences and conflict parties that identify either with the victims’ plight or the terrorists’ professed cause;"
Hence, I'd say we used the term "personal" wrong in this context but "bringing the war home" is described by #6 (which is what I meant but apparently wasn't understood as such) whereas #7 explains the targets are a means to an end. Though that wasn't disputed its an important addition and addendum to #6.
As a side note, I recommend to keep these 12 rules in mind when discussing terrorism. It makes discussing terrorism much easier because we're using definitions as agreed upon my academics who study (counter)terrorism.
[1] http://www.internationalsecurityinterest.com/index.php/resea...
* They're generally not resorting to violence; they're blocking the boats. That's akin to me standing before you so you cannot cross the zebra (while I have the moral highground).
* Furthermore, Japan claims it requires these whales for "scientific" purposes. In reality they're used for consumption.
* As can be read in the article: Japan is hunting in a conservation zone, the Southern Ocean.
* Quoting from the article: "Then, a few years ago, the International Court of Justice – at the instigation of Australia and New Zealand – ruled that the country’s whaling plan had no scientific basis. [...]" [1]
* After which they increased the "research" area: Quote "But, crucially, the Japanese also doubled the area of the Southern Ocean from which they said they would seek whales"
Furthermore, the reason why they lost isn't because they resort to violence. The reason, as stated in the article: "In addition, the Japanese have provided military tracking hardware to the fleet, according to Sea Shepherd." and "This is all part of the vast subsidy provided by the Japanese government for their whalers. And to top that they have also made it an act of terrorism for anybody to approach within 500 metres of a whaling vessel"
And, as you can read from the article, the reasons why Japan opposes quitting whale hunting is three-fold: 1) nation pride and its tradition to receive large amounts of protein from dish 2) the fear for a domino effect 3) Quote: "And then there is the issue of the Antarctic Treaty which strictly controls how the continent and its waters are exploited. That treaty does not expire until 2048. But if Japan maintains a presence in Antarctic waters it could make a claim to be allowed greater influence in the region when a new treaty is negotiated by world powers."
[1] The International Court of Justice, which has its seat in The Hague, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations http://www.icj-cij.org/
They're sometimes violent. "Mr. Watson and his Sea Shepherd Conservation Society have rammed, sabotaged, shot water canons at and thrown stink bombs on whalers and commercial fishing vessels" [1].
There is an odd symbiosis between the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism and the Japanese government's protests. Peacefully tailing and documenting would be more effective in the long run. But de-esclating would piss off the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's donors. In the meantime, Japan uses the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism to distract from its own activities.
> The International Court of Justice, which has its seat in The Hague, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations
The ICJ's jurisdiction is complicated, e.g. "compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision [2]. (Japan has rejected the ICJ's jurisdiction over this issue [3].)
In any case, the Sea Shepherd regularly breaks suites of international maritime laws. Advocating for the limited application of the law is advocating for no law.
[1] https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2010/0106/Whale-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice...
[3] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/japan-...
If so, that’s unfortunate, as violence is sometimes necessary against a bully. If not, what’s the difference?
Disclaimer: I am pro “use of force” when all other options are exhausted.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a private organization [1].
> Violence is sometimes necessary
Per the article, Japan reduced its Southern Ocean whaling in response to the International Court of Justice, not the Sea Shepherd.
Protesting in an international forum is fundamentally different from protesting domestically. There is no coërcive third party to enforce the rules. You have to convince the people you're protesting to want to change. Contrast the culture at the UN to e.g. a regulatory agency.
Most Japanese don't eat whale [2]. Whaling has become a symbol of national sovereignty and pride. Foreign vessels ramming your ships stokes national pride. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society may have eliminated a diplomatic solution to whaling for a generation or two.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd_Conservation_Soci...
[2] https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1201/Almost-nobody-in...
Diplomacy is apathy by committee. If governments do not act, private citizens must. We only get one Earth.
In most countries, the right of private citizens to enforce the law themselves is very narrow. This is not because we do not respect the law, but because allowing private people to play cops and robbers can easily become a situation where it’s hard to tell who is what.
> The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a private organization [1].
Private entities are allowed to enforce the law in international waters, actually.
In any case, what law are the Japanese vessels breaking? They amended their quotas to comply with the ICJ ruling [2].
Ramming things makes for good TV. It is emotionally satisfying. Practically, however, it is ineffective or even detrimental towards the goal of saving whales. (It is very effective at maintaining certain peoples’ livelihoods and drumming up nationalistic support for whaling in Japan.)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law
[2] the article
Lets see:
1) Ramming (non-physical person to person)
2) Sabotaging (vague; the rest are all examples of sabotage. I can't take this vague term serious)
3) Shooting water cannons (again, non-physical person to person)
4) Stink bombs (apparently this is violence in 2017; laughable)
You define all of this as violence? You know what I call violence? Killing whales. Using grenades. Using napalm/agent orange on trees, innocent civilians, friendlies and enemies alike, using depleted uranium, cluster bombs, the usage and sale of (semi) automatic weapons. All of this crap causes way more deaths than anything you summed up. Nothing even close to what in this example the US government resorted to in the previous and current century ever since WWII (I'm just using the US as an example since its an easy one I know a wee bit about; there are other ones as well of course). Never mind the term terrorism which is without base (the above is not terrorism as per the definition of Alex P. Schmid), flat out character assassination / the pot calling the kettle black (fallacy). Violence is a very relative term, indeed what Sea Shepherd have resorted to is at the very worst 'modest violence'. There's a better, less loaded term for their behavior which also covers their intentions: activism.
> There is an odd symbiosis between the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism and the Japanese government's protests. Peacefully tailing and documenting would be more effective in the long run. But de-esclating would piss off the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's donors. In the meantime, Japan uses the Sea Shepherd's vigilantism to distract from its own activities.
That's a theory, and a theory you can have about any proactive activism vs pacifist protests. Even in WWII, resistance fighters had different methods. Some more proactive, some more pacifist. At the very least, being pacifist won't save any injustice on the short term.
> The ICJ's jurisdiction is complicated, e.g. "compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision [2]. (Japan has rejected the ICJ's jurisdiction over this issue [3].)
If you can avoid a jurisprudence because you don't wish to respect the court in the first place I call that a loophole within the law. Would be something, if I as civilian of The Netherlands can decide to flat our ignore jurisprudence from the courts of The Netherlands because I don't like the subject or the outcome.
Furthermore, they have the law on their side because Japan isn't using these whales for scientific purposes AFAICT. It doesn't seem Japan has to defend that case which is another loophole.
> In any case, the Sea Shepherd regularly breaks suites of international maritime laws. Advocating for the limited application of the law is advocating for no law.
Action -> Reaction, and Predator vs Prey. Like with bullying, if you bully (or troll) someone, and that victim ends up eventually biting you back, then you got only yourself to blame. The way I see it, Sea Shepherd is protecting the weak, the victim, the pray (literally).
If they'd never resort to physical violence with their boat they're like a barking dog who doesn't bite. They need to show their teeth regularly, and seek the confrontation. Nobody wants to end up like Dutchbat in Srebrenica where the opponent knows that you won't take respond to their actions.
Without this documentation and tracking, the whalers will continue to hide from anyone's view.
There are around 500,000 minke whales (the type they hunt) in the Antarctic, Japanese whaling kills approximately 300 whales per year.
Please explain to me why you think this is such an issue?
The problem isn't primarily about the numbers of minke whales. It's that they are hunting what many people consider a sentient species, in an inhuman way. In most parts of the world, you aren't allowed to slaughter an animal (at least in theory) in a way that causes pain or distress. With whales there is no reasonable way of doing this due to their size.