Japanese police have arrested two Greenpeace activists for exposing a whale meat scandal involving the government-sponsored whaling program.
The two activists, Junichi Sato, 31, and Toru Suzuki, 41, are being investigated for allegedly stealing a box of whale meat which they presented as evidence.
According to Greenpeace, the box of expensive cuts of whale meat had been illicitly removed by crew of the Nisshin Maru, the whaling factory ship, following this year’s Southern Ocean whale hunt. Its contents were marked ‘cardboard’ and it was shipped to a private address. Tracked by Greenpeace investigators, it was intercepted and turned over to the Public Prosecutor in Tokyo, as evidence of wide-scale corruption at the heart of the whaling operation in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
The two activists are to be held another ten days without charge by Japanese police. No charges have been laid relating to the embezzlement of whale meat, and that the Japanese Public Prosecutor has subsequently dropped his investigation into the involvement of the crew and whaling officials in this illegal trade.
The response of the Japanese Authorities in sending forty police officers to raid the Greenpeace offices and seize all computers and financial records is a disproportionate reaction to this matter, which raises concerns that this is a politically motivated action designed to shut down the successful Greenpeace public education campaign within Japan at the time of the IWC meeting.
The Australian Government should be pressing the Japanese Government to take action on the alleged embezzlement of whale meat, and to either charge the Greenpeace activists with an offence or release them.
You can read the full Greenpeace report on the evidence collected and sign the petition to the Japanese Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to demand the activists’ immediate release.
The two Greenpeace activists were not arrested for “exposing a whale meat scandal” (that is how PR spinsters working for a very embarassed Greenpeace International are trying to sell it).
They were arrested for, alledgedly, trespassing on private property and stealing a package. After alledgedly stealing the package, it took them more than a month to hand the box over to officials, and only after they were criticised for having taken it in the first place. “Presenting the box as evidence” is more spin from a very embarassed Greenpeace International.
Further, although Greenpeace alledged the package contained meat that a Kyodo Senpaku crew member had stolen from Kyodo Senpaku, Kyodo Senpaku and Tokyo Prosecutors Office were both satisfied that the meat was that which Kyodo Senpaku had gifted to crew members, as a part of their employment arrangements. Thus the crew did not “illicitly remove” the meat. The Tokyo Prosecutors Office investigated Greenpeace Japan’s allegations for about a month before deciding not to prosecute, stating that there was no suspicion of wrong-doing, after looking into the claims.
Police are continuing to investigate whether the Greenpeace organization was involved in the planning and execution of the trespass and theft crimes committed by two of their members.
It’s interesting that a political party in Australia would see fit to publish Greenpeace’s spin on this matter on their official blog, unless of course you think it is as funny as we here in Japan do. I don’t think Greenpeace has a future in Japan as an environmental NGO, considering their illegal and hypocritical methods.
Matsumoto Kiyoshi, you seem well informed on one version of events. How did you acquire your information?
Good question mcfarm
I also like how quickly Matsumoto’s response was posted here. Are the Japanese (either official or public) monitoring the news (and blogosphere) that closely, that they feel the need to jump on any mention of this issue with such gusto?
I am told the rape of Nanking didn’t take place in the official Japanese version of history either.
mcfarm, if you could read Japanese too you’d have no problem acquiring the information. This has been a headline story here in Japan, and I’m amazed to see how different the version of events that Greenpeace is spinning out to it’s fan club in the west. Nanking? You are familiar with Godwin’s law I suppose.
Harvey S, my response was posted here after I saw this blog as a headline in the english news at google.
If you doubt my information, do some checking for yourselves. Some english news sources have reported it reasonably accurately.
Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, but a headline story in Japan is about a box of whale meat? So I don’t need to read Japanese to be cynical about the Japanese press. We really shouldn’t believe all we read in the press, no matter the language.
The Godwin defence to gag discussion? I don’t think so, but let me rephrase, as Nanking is obviously a sore point. If the Japanese government and press are prepared to obfuscate about the big things of history, how can they be trusted with the small? Why should anyone believe a version of events from the Japanese press, born of Japanese Govt. spin, a Govt. with a vested interest in the outcome being unfavourable for Greenpeace at this point in time?
The headlines are about Greenpeace getting arrested for commiting crimes, all just in order to accuse their nemesis, the whalers, of crimes. Not a box of whale meat. “So, Greenpeace came out and accused the whalers of embezzling whale meat, but in the end wound up arrested themselves for having stolen whale meat … “, noted one news caster the other evening. Perhaps the irony is lost on lovers of Greenpeace.
The Godwin defence is not intended to “gag discussion”, although I don’t intend to be commenting on war time issues, which have nothing to do with Greenpeace commiting crimes today in 2008.
But, you are welcome to be paranoid about the Japanese media on this issue, and trust ever word Greenpeace says, if you are so inclined.
Good day.
Cynicism is hardly paranoia, and somewhere between the two versions of events stand the facts.
Trust Greenpeace? About as much as I trust the Japanese governments version of the ‘truth’. Both use spin, but Greenpeace is far more open and transparent in it’s objectives and tactics. The fact that GP must fight fire with fire and use spin, is a sad reflection of the systemic covert and corrupt nature of it’s adversaries.
But ask yourself this: is it really headline material that two people were arrested for trespass and allegedly stealing one box of whale meat? If the persons involved were not from Greenpeace, would the news even make page 17? So it appears the headlines are politically motivated spin. Who has the most to gain form such a story beat up? Could it be the Japanese government and the whalers negotiating at the IWC? And how is the Japanese Prime Minister’s popularity at home these days?
Perhaps the Japanese government and whaling spin doctors have more influence over the Japanese press in Japan than Greenpeace, what do you think?
To Mcfarm,
Mr. Matsumoto’s information about this subject is correct. The two Greenpeace members,by their own admission,took a box from a private shipping company. The shipping company filed a criminal complaint with the police. The police arrested the Greenpeace members for theft,nothing more.
Why should anyone believe Greenpeace’s version of events, For that matter?They have,even more,of a vested interest in a favorable outcome,i.e. staying out of jail.
However,if you cannot trust the Japanese. Perhaps you can trust Paul Watson. He’s white,by the way. He had a few words for Greenpeace on the SS website. Of course,he added his own propaganda spin to this issue.
You expressed skepticism about the Japanese government and press because of past actions. A person might have equal skepticism about the Australian government and press on enviromental issues. Since 1788, 23 species of birds,4 frogs and 27 mammals have been rendered extinct in Australia. That kind of enviromental record does not lend much credibility to them as leaders in animal conservation.
So Mark, a theft of a box has occurred, criminal charges laid and two people arrested “nothing more”. Then why is it headline news in Japan? The disproportionate response alone should ring alarm bells.
Me, trust a politician in power and their hand fed press? I don’t care if they are black white or brindle, I view them all with suspicion.
And so you allude my posts are racist in motivation. I really must tell the Japanese exchange students and wwoofers, not to mention the Koreans, French, Chinese, Germans, Nigerians, Dutch, Cambodians and all other nationalities I welcome into my home for weeks on end, that I’m a racist. They’re not all white by the way either, and would appreciate the joke.
I have no opinion of Paul Watson, I haven’t studied the individual.
Species extinctions are a tragedy, and Australia fully admits to having the fastest rate of extinction of any continent. We are also working hard to redress the wrongs of our forebears who introduced the pests.
As for your logic, since when do the wrongs of one nation justify the wrongs of another? A comparative wrong is still a wrong, and using a comparative wrong is an admission of wrong by the one one doing the comparing. So the ‘your wrong is bigger than mine’ is hardly a defense, it is simply the pot calling the kettle black - but I think we have had this discussion before.
mcfarm,
The headline story was created in part because of Greenpeace’s publicity of their original complaint against the whalers. But it backfired, because at the time people were concerned that their “investigation” methods were illegal, and this would set a dangerous precedent. Is it OK to commit a crime in order to “gain evidence” for you yourself to make allegations of crimes by others? If it is, then hell I could go break into Greenpeace’s offices, file through their cabinets and computers, and even take one if I decided that it was “evidence” (of some crime I might dream up).
The reality is that even police require writs etc before they can take such actions.
It hit the headlines again the other day because it turned out that Greenpeace were arrested themselves, despite having made accustations against others.
Little has been “gained” by the whalers out of this. On the contrary there is a suggestion that they may take legal action against Greenpeace for their wrong allegations and possible reputational damage. But the reputational damage to the whalers isn’t much compared to the shame that Greenpeace Japan has heaped upon itself.
What I find deplorable is the way that Greenpeace International has sought to spin this story so as to try to garner more support from the international community, and absolutely misleading them in order to do so. For a group that claims to be for the noble objective of environmental conservation, this group seems like a big fraud outfit. I’m sure Greenpeace do some good things somewhere, but as for their vendetta against whaling it’s way off the rails.
“Little has been “gained” by the whalers out of this”, and yet you claim great shame for Greenpeace. I thought the perception of shame carried great political weight in Japan? Japanese Prime Ministers have left office due to ‘great shame’. If the Government and whalers, via the press, have succeeded in attributing great shame to Greenpeace, that is the equivalent of a big political spin win.
To then use the law to ‘prove’ the shame by suing for damages is a predictable tactic of spin. The law is not about shame, right or wrong, or even justice - it is about the law.
If a law prevents you from achieving a goal and you break that law, all you have done is break a law. If you believe that law to be in error or obstructive, there is no guilt or shame associated. To wit, the leader of the Australian Greens has been arrested more than once for breaking an Australian law he deemed obstructive. Yet he keeps getting elected, this must be “because it is well known that Australia is populated entirely by a race of criminals”.
Greenpeace’s shame has been brought upon themselves by their commiting crimes in a fit of cult-like desperation seeking to pin a crime on their nemesis, not the government or the whalers. Greenpeace’s crimes and their subsequent arrest are Greenpeace’s responsibility, not any one else’s.
This is common sense here in Japan, I thought it would have been a kind of standard globally. I might have that wrong I guess.
Oh now you Aussies have me rolling all over the floor:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23925278-5013871,00.html
Posting Greenpeace’s propaganda on a political blog is one thing, but your Senate now passing such a motion, all on the basis of what Greenpeace has told you? Is this level of prudence how all decisions in Australia are made?
I think you’re missing that these activists told the prosecutor’s office about the box, offered to turn it over and asked for an investigation. The activists don’t want the box of whale meat. They didn’t take it for personal gain. They just gave it to the prosecutor because action was needed to expose secret tax-payer-funded corruption. From the start they made themselves available - with full explanations - to the police and the proscutor. Yet the police used heavy-handed force to take them into custody right as the IWC commenced. It’s all political. This is what happens when you expose people with power. We should stand up for people who are just trying to expose corruption.
Matsumoto - you’re also ignoring a key point here.
These activists are being held without trial, until the IWC is over.
Tell me that’s not a purely political move…
Also, you seem very interested in the topic - perhaps you would be willing to disclose your employers?
Wouldn’t be the Cetacean Institute would it?
Greenpeace does not have shame because they do not believe they have done ‘wrong’, perhaps they have broken a law they consider obstructive, but no more than that. But I accept that the Japanese concept of shame is different.
Common sense is also culturally based, so we agree to disagree.
We shall see just who will be whose nemesis. A battle lost now and then is not so important, but the war to save the whales from slaughter will be won in the end.
You may laugh at Australians (we do), and you will probably think this funny too, but ponder the implications.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/26/2286356.htm
Matt,
That’s the “legal advice” that Greenpeace supposedly have regarding their actions. I don’t know the details of the law, but I’ll be suprised if that stands up in court. If it doesn’t I could head along to Greenpeace’s office, break in, steal (sorry, “take as evidence”) a computer, submit it to the prosectors a whole month later with a grand story about Greenpeace’s criminal behavior - and not be arrested or prosecuted for it.
Harvey S, the alledged criminals are being held without trial because they’ve only just been arrested and are still under investigation. Trials come later.
Political? Greenpeace exposed their own crime a month ago (they chose the timing), police started investigating, and subsequently made arrests. You’ve been watching too much X-files I reckon (see also your questioning whether I work for the Cetacean Institute).
Here’s a simple rule that even primary school kids can understand:
Don’t trespass and take away private property, and you won’t end up in prison. Take responsibility for your own actions, kids. Take responsibility for your own actions…
Matsumoto Kiyoshi, your ‘kid’ is injured, do you obey all the traffic laws on your way to hospital and risk the loss of your kid’s life? Do you take responsibility for your actions and child’s life, or obey the rule of law? Life is never patronisingly simple.
mcfarm, You’re right that Greenpeace appear not to believe they have done wrong. This belief will make matters worse for them.
“war to save the whales from slaughter will be won in the end”, is that some kind of prophecy?
The story from Spain is interesting though..
mcfarm, I don’t accept your comparison. Apples and oranges. But as I think we found, common sense seems to differ between where we come from.
22 Matsumoto, you criticise our Australian Senate at 14! At least our political parties in Australia do not have to pay around US $52,000 to stand candidates to contest an election, as in Japan!. I doubt whether your parliament is very representative of the Japanese community, only Japanese business interests which is what ‘Scientific Whaling’ is all about, making money from slabs of whale meat!
The greenpeace activists should not have broken the law. I don’t believe it was either justified or even helpful to their cause in this case.
The Japanese police should either charge the activists or let them go. Holding them for ten days without charge is obscene. The government should also investigate the alleged black market for whale meat.
Matsumoto Kiyoshi, the ‘war’ comment was metaphorical. Greenpeace may lose a court case, but eventually the whale slaughter will be stopped.
A prediction; first the southern oceans will be declared a whale sanctuary, and then the sanctuary will be extended to all international waters. Not sure when either will come to fruition, but the process is well under way.
My point about the ‘kid’ and law breaking is to show that sometimes laws must be broken for a perceived greater good. We simply disagree over what that greater good is.
Brenton, the position of the Japanese government is that marine resources should be regarded as a source of food, and it is important to study such natural resources, and of course the Japanese government hopes the moratorium will be lifted so commercial harvests can be resumed soon. Not so different from Australia. Look what I found.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/publications/kangaroo/pubs/2007-commercial-harvest-quotas.pdf
“While Australia’s laws concerning wildlife trade are some of the most stringent in the world, they are not intended to obstruct the sustainable activities of legitimate organisations and individuals. Instead they have been designed to demonstrate that, when managed effectively, wildlife trade contributes to and is entirely compatible with the objectives of wildlife conservation.”
I think it’s just a matter of time before Australia starts applying it’s principles to whales as well. I also heard Australia had trouble recently with kangaroo culling. It will be too hard for Australia to maintain inconsistent wildlife policies over the long term.
The 327th male, the thieves are still under questioning, and they’ll almost certainly be charged. The police also investigated Greenpeace’s allegations about the black market, but found no problems. You should not be suprised if Greenpeace are also arrested for filing false charges or obstructing officials from their duty. Greenpeace should have thought twice before running it’s bnaseless negative propaganda campaign.
mcfarm, “first the southern oceans will be declared a whale sanctuary”, this already happened. 1994.
“and then the sanctuary will be extended to all international waters”, this already happened. 1982.
All the pure types of Green Activists as protectors of whales and all the pure Japanese defenders of the cause of Japanese Law are here.So pure in intent that jojoba bean oil will never be mentioned or indeed ,wether two people claiming territorial significance over common sense can ,in fact, be using common sense.Then there is mentioned primary schools,like a familarity exists between schools in the two distinct countries,Japan and Australia. The other strange reality I note,between these types presenting the common sense,is the accused seem definitely Japanese.The Law is Japanese. And the IWC is international,and so at times are the unemployed as non-police officers. Whereas Bob Brown’s dad was a Police Officer in simpler times. I cannot stand the phoney talking down of the friendly but critical Japanese common sense displayed here,or some Tasmanian I would suspect claiming a National territorial assemblance of common sense. We all know as individuals even the protestors in Japan,their Police,The Whalers and the Greenpeace Activists etc. would get on pretty easily together if there wasnt this dispute. After all,Tasmanians could try getting more Police from Japan down for a holiday in Tassie,via a whaleboat,bringing motorbikes,even a boat, and whatever else they wanted to bring.Why dont the Japanese Police claim the Whaling fleet in part or whole as useful for their purposes in Japan!?Did that hurt!? A different attitude!?Bring the IWC with camper beds!?
Ten days for questioning? I’d call that imprisonment.
Kangaroos aren’t endangered, whales are.
Matsumoto Kiyoshi, I suppose my definition of a future whale sanctuary would exclude the permitting of lethal ’scientific research’. Such obvious circumventions of the spirit and intent of the sanctuaries would then not be tolerated. Furthermore, the sanctuaries would be exclusion zones for non signatories.
It interests me that in all the preceding posts you are very firm on the letter of the law, but when the spirit and intent of a law are disagreeable to you and Japan, there is no problem using loopholes to bypass said law (via ’scientific research’ or detention without charge or trial). Obviously this says you and your country are ‘law abiding’, but in breaking the spirit and intent of a law, what does it say about integrity?
Now before you rush off to find evidence of Australia’s lack of integrity on some issue, let me say it again, two wrongs don’t make a right. I am absolutely sure Australia lacks integrity on some issues, but that does not excuse Japan’s lack of integrity on the whaling issue of the jailing of the Greenpeace activists.
And as for ten days for questioning over a box of whale meat? Any reasonable system of justice would say this is excessive. So either the Japanese system of justice is excessive in dealing with alleged minor crimes, or there is another agenda.
What was I saying about the ‘war’ being won? It will be won incrementally.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/27/2287381.htm
Mcfarm,
Why is it headline news in Australia? Why is it news in over a hundred non-Japanese newspapers? Why is it posted on a Australian political blog,complete with a link to an online petition?
Did you take the time to read the english versions of the Japanese newspapers on this subject or did you just decide the headlines were suspicious and not bother with it?
You view them ‘all with suspician’. The press? Politicians in general or just the ones ‘in power’? The Australian government or all governments? NGO’s? Are NGO’s more believable than the government or the press?
I’m afraid you read more into my post than was there. I was not implying that you were a racist.
“We are also working hard to redress the wrongs of our forebearers”. Who is “we”? The Australian government? The politicians? You said yourself they should be viewed with suspician.
You brought up Nanking in post#4 and #6. You offered your view of Japan’s past actions as evidence of their lack of credibility,now. I mention Australia’s past actions as evidence of their lack of credibility,now. Then you say ‘your wrong is bigger than mine’ is not a defense. Once again,you are reading more into my post then is there. My comment wasn’t offered as a defense.
So,do you think that Nanking is relevent to a news story about Greenpeace or not? If not,why did you bring it up?
Mark, my comment was inflammatory which I now regret. Even though it is slightly more real for me than most, as members of my family were there at the time and emerged unharmed. You will also notice that it has not been mentioned by me since. That said, the denial of a government and a people of a truth for decades is an indication of their propensity to tell the truth on other matters.
As for the racist comments, why mention the colour of a persons skin? Perhaps I misread you, but I find the colour of a persons skin irrelevant, so in your raising it in a discussion, I came to a conclusion - perhaps wrong, but I doubt it.
The 327th Male, the species of whales Japan hunts aren’t endangered. Japan agrees that endangered species such as the Blue whale have not recovered enough to permit even small scientific permit hunts yet. This will probably take at least another half a century. The situation with the species Japan hunts is much better. And Japan is hunting them in relatively miniscule proportions.
I’m sure Australia will come to it’s senses and see the sense in sustainable harvests of whales in the next few years, as it’s hypocrisy is exposed more and more both at home and abroad. Did you see your leader, Kevin Rudd in Tokyo recently? He was shown shoveling Aussie beef into the mouths of young children. Beef produced so that Australians can profit from selling the products to Japanese. But Australia would deny Japanese people the right to profit from the sustainable harvest of whales, even those found in Japanese waters, let alone those in international waters.
mcfarm, you seem to be suggesting the creation of a whole new legal framework, in order to have a sanctuary where even scientific permit hunting is not allowed. I doubt that Japan and many many other nations would agree to establish such rules as those you suggest. On the contrary I expect Japan and other nations to set up a new organization to set sustainable catch limits for whales, relatively soon. The work towards this has already started, according to Japanese media reports.
You also suggest that the spirit and intent of the existing law is disagreeable to myself and Japan. This is absolutely wrong. Here is the convention that Japan agreed to.
http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm#convention
Which parts of it do you think are disagreeable to me?
I can point to a host of sections of the agreement that the Australian government is obviously completely opposed to. Yet Australia maintains it’s membership within the organization, and people like you have the nerve to suggest that it is Japan that is not acting within the spirit and intent of the convention. The blanket moratorium on even harvests of abundant whales was clearly not in accordance with the intent of this agreement, which is to conserve whale populations and make for the development of the whaling industry. An eternal moratorium is obviously inconsistent with this aim.
“So either the Japanese system of justice is excessive in dealing with alleged minor crimes”
Theft and trespass are not considered minor crimes in Japan (and there is suspicion of other crimes as well). If the same is not true of Australia, then I suggest its Australia that is out of step with the rest of the world, not Japan.
Matsumoto Kiyoshi, leaving off whether or not whaling is sustainable are you really sure that whale meat is the healthy food of choice?
Japan has already had a very tragic experience with heavy metal poisoning when villagers got mercury poisoning. Here in Australia we are being advised to limit our consumption of some species of fish, which has come as a shock to some of us as fish has been seen as a clean, healthy option.
Whales of course unlike kangaroos and sheep are floating around there at the top of the food chain and probably accumulating heavy metals like mad.
Maybe the middle-aged business men figure that overwork and stress will get them before they get symptoms from accumulating heavy metals.
Personally I wouldn’t touch the stuff. I hope that you trust your government and whaling companies to tell you if they find heavy metals in the whale meat from all this ’scientific’ whaling, and not stay quiet because of profits and misplaced national pride.
I was speaking to the spirit and intent of sanctuaries, not the 1946 IWC agreement on whaling. Most people assume a sanctuary to be a place safe from hunting. As you point out these sanctuaries exist, and yet whales are still hunted. Hunting in ’sanctuaries’ is an aberration to be corrected.
Legal frameworks come and go, and the world is a very different place from 1946. It will be a very small club of whale hunting nations that sets limits to their own catch - no conflict of interest either. International pressure and diplomacy from the rest of the world to cease whaling will eventually win the day. Particularly as Japan’s economic influence continues to fade.
But do the Japanese really believe it is an appropriate response to detain someone for 10 days without charge or trial for trespass and minor theft? If so it’s a brave new world you live in. I don’t think we can do that in Australia, even to people suspected of terrorism, but I may be wrong.
Judith, thank you for your concern for the health of whale eaters.
The answer to your question is that it depends on the whale species, where it was harvested from, the part of the whale that is eaten, and the quantity of it that you consume.
One unfortunate side-effect of unnecessarily banning commercial whaling was that fishermen subsequently sought to obtain their protein via smaller types of cetaceans, toothed cetaceans in particular. These species are known to generally have higher concentrations of of contaminants than larger baleen whale species. But the typical rates of consumption are not so high due to limited supply of meat, so this hasn’t yet resulted in any health problems that we are aware of.
On the other hand, Antarctic minke whales feed pretty much exclusively on Antarctic krill, and consequently have low levels of contaminants. This meat is excellent in health terms, and is quite an important protein source for some people with various allergies.
Baleen whales in the north pacific and north atlantic include fish species in their diet, and so they have higher concentrations of contaminants, but the red meat is still basically fine to eat, although some internal organs of the whale (which are consumed in Japan) can become not as safe for eating. The Japanese ministry of health has conducted studies in the past and confirmed these issues.
So, if I may correct your understanding, it’s not so easy to describe whales as being at the top of the food chain. This is closer to the mark regarding toothed cetacean species, but quite far off the mark regarding baleen whales, which actually feed quite low down the food chain, especially in Antarctic waters.
As perhaps you can imagine, we are not as susceptible to scare-campaigns as people in places where whale meat is not consumed.
My feeling is that the misplaced national pride actually lies in Australia, a former whaling nation that recklessly hunted whales, only to obtain oils for industrial purposes, with meat wasted. Australia’s anti-whaling policy seems to have been adopted in an effort to console yourselves for this action. Japan too has contributed to overhunting of certain whale species. I think Japan is very much on the correct path now, no knee-jerk responses to mistakes, just correcting things and moving forward. Biological resources such as whales are naturally-renewing, utilising these resources is the way for the future. I expect Japan will continue to support this idea in international forums, and hope that Australia soon sees the light.
mcfarm, Sanctuaries may be established if they contribute to conservation and development of the whaling industry (and have scientific basis, etc). But if a sanctuary or set of sanctuaries prevents the whaling industry from operating at all, you can recognise that it is against the spirit of the agreement. This is the case with the 1994 southern ocean sanctuary. It encompasses the entire Antarctic hunting grounds, the regulation of whaling in which was the main reason why the agreement was made in the first place.
These agreements can be abused, but as IWC history shows us, it’s very difficult to abuse them to the point of doing exactly the opposite of what they are supposed to do. I accept that Japan’s actions have frustrated those seeking to skuttle the IWC’s mission, but I don’t accept that Japan’s actions were wrong at all. Under the circumstances, Japan has done what should have been expected.
I think you are hasty to suggest that Japan’s economic influence is a reason it hasn’t ceased whaling. Iceland has just 300,000 people, yet they have been strong enough to resume commercial whaling, even with threats of economic terrorism against them by the USA. As for Japan, when it comes to matters of food resources, this is one issue that Japan will never cave on under any circumstances, I believe.
“But do the Japanese really believe it is an appropriate response to detain someone for 10 days without charge or trial for trespass and minor theft?”
As I said, I expect they will be charged. Japan is not the sort of country where criminals are allowed to get away free.
Masumoto, a couple of comments - mainly about your post at 33 in which you talk about profiting from sustainable harvesting of whales. I wonder if by this you are saying that Japanese whaling should be, or is already, commercial whaling.
1. The IWC put in place the global moratorium on commercial whaling because whale stocks were so depleted and marine ecosystems needed time to recover from over-exploitation by whalers. The concept of ’sustainable hunting’ is argued about a lot, but it’s a dangerous one - we’re talking about ecosystems that were close to extinction. The IWC’s approach is rightly precautionary, giving the benefit of doubt to the whales. Remember whales face other threats too (such as loss of krill due to ocean temps rising). It’s also been shown (by DNA testing of products) that whales are being caught beyond the stated quotas in countries like Japan. It’s not the time to let pro-whaling countries start hunting again.
2. Part of the reason that people criticise Japan’s programme is that it exploits the “research” loophole. The appearance is that Japan undertakes commercial whaling in disguise and abuses the scientific method. That is why the meat ends up in stores (or before that, on the blackmarket) and why Japan has a very low publication rate of whale research (much of it being useless and strange). It is also not necessary that the research be lethal.
3. Japan is also the target of anti-whaling arguments because it takes an enormous catch of whales. Between 1952 and 1986, all nations combined (including Japan) took a total of approximately 2100 whales for research purposes; Japan presently takes more than half that many each year.
Matt, Japan has commercial whaling already. Commercial quotas are already set for certain whale species, and harvests are undertaken. If you search for “Wada whaling”, I suppose you will find one example of this. The whaling under IWC rules is currently scientific permit whaling. I know some Aussies think this is commercial whaling in disguise, but this is quite an uninformed view.
1. The IWC already had moratoriums on hunting most species of whales, before the so-called “moratorium” of 1982.
For example, Humpbacks, Blues, Fins. These large whales had already been protected under the IWC by the 1960’s and 1970’s, due to over-exploitation by various nations. It was as these moratoriums were imposed that other whaling nations dropped out of the business.
So by the 1980’s, most species were already protected from whaling.
The effect of the global moratorium was only eliminate even whaling of Antarctic minkes, and small coastal whaling operations.
If you consider that the IWC later in 1990 recognised that there were almost certainly more than 500,000 minkes in the Antarctic, Japan’s stance in opposition to the moratorium was vindicated. This species was no where near being over-exploited, let alone endangered. The moratorium which banned even whaling of just 5,000+ minkes each year was “overkill”, if I may use an ironic term.
2. I recognise that people in anti-whaling countries are suspicious of research whaling. However suspicion and reality are not the same.
3. Prior to the “moratorium”, it was possible to obtain biological data for stock assessment by using samples obtained from commercial whaling operations. But with the moratorium, this became impossible. Scientific permits became the only way to obtain such data, so naturally use of the provision increased. Also there was also the benefit for stock assessment scientists because the whales could be caught in a manner that is most conducive to scientific study, rather than how the commercial whalers saw fit. The whales caught today are selected via a random process, so as to ensure that a representative sample of the population can be obtained. With data from commercial operations, the animals caught tended to be the largest ones for economic reasons, so the data was not representative. Today Japanese scientists say that even if we resume commercial whaling, systematic scientific whaling ought to continue as well to ensure good unbiased data can still be collected.
Also, under the IWC’s quota system, any catches taken under scientific permit will automatically reduce any commercial catch quotas. In effect, the IWC could regulate numbers of whales taken under scientific permit, but this would involve accepting commercial whaling. This would be fine with Japan, but the anti-whaling nations seem to not want to regulate commercial whaling or scientific whaling.
There is a difference in opinion regarding the necessity of lethal means to obtain the biological data, but Japan actually produces large amounts of biological data. Australia criticises Japan fiercely, but I believe Australia has provided very little biological data on minke whales, for example, to the IWC. I think this speaks for itself about the truth of the matter.
Matsumoto Kiyoshi thanks for your reply.
I’m glad that you have faith in the Japanese Department of Health. Just incase though this wasn’t the full picture, I did a google, using the words ‘heavy metals whales dangerous levels human consumption”. Google while a imperfect method of research did flag a few interesting articles and come up with 345,000 hits.
I think I’ll leave the whale meat sandwiches out of my kid’s lunch boxes after this article about the japanese kids being fed toxic dolphin meat. http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070708/070802-1.htm
As for Antarctic waters being clean, I wouldn’t rely on it to much, I was thinking of heavy metals being a problem, other articles flagged DDT and PCB’s which hang around in the environment for years and accumulate. Whales get through a lot of krill which must be pulling this stuff in.
So when people roll through the Japanese equivilent of Macdonalds for their whale burger, do they get asked ‘would you like some toxins with that sir?’ Are you sure enough of it being a safe meat to feed your kids it every night?
As for it being good for people with allergies huh,, can’t see how that would work - tried organically raised free range chicken? It’s got to be a better option.
Matsumoto, thank you for your reply @ 39. You have written a lot there, but I think it is misleading. You’re repeating information that is often said by pro-whaling officials and other whaling apologists and has been shown to be incorrect. It’s unfortunate, because keeping that info out there misleads the public.
The main example about the numbers of minke whales: you are citing this population estimation despite the fact that at its 2000 meeting, the IWC Scientific Committee explicitly said that it no longer had faith in that estimate and that it had no reliable estimate of the numbers of minkes. The IWC declared that the 1990 figure was no longer valid. Subsequent research has suggested the number of minkes may be much lower.
Maybe that was an oversight by you, or are you sticking to the discredited 1990 estimation on purpose?
Judith, as I mentioned before, there is a difference between meat from different parts of the world, and different species, as they eat different prey.
I think Japanese consumers would be much happier choosing baleen whale meat instead of dolphin, but unfortunately Australia amongst others is responsible for preempting that.
Research has shown the meat from the Antarctic is extremely clean, even anti-whaling campaign groups do not deny this.
Matt,
I think there is nothing misleading about my information regarding the overkill nature of the 1982 moratorium.
Regarding the minke estimate, you are correct that today and by 2000 the estimate was out of date. But of course. It is an estimate based on data collected in the 1980’s.
That estimate does remain the best estimate for the 1980’s years, and you can see that the estimate is still published on the IWC’s homepage:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm
As you talk of, when more recent data was collected during the 1990’s and early 2000’s, applying the same estimation methods to the data came up with numbers quite a lot lower than in the previous study.
The scientific committee has ever since been busy re-evaluating their estimation methods as a result, because it was thought that the level of decrease suggested was biologically implausible. Soon they may finalise a revised estimate, and once they have, it will confirm my point. Because, even if the estimate is lower, it is still certain that there will be some hundreds of thousands of minkes. Hundreds of thousands, whether it be 300,000 or 500,000 or 700,000, is nowhere near extinction.
I am aware that many Australians believe like a religion that the moratorium “saved the whales” from extinction, so it must be difficult to have such a lovely fairy tale myth exploded.
But the IWC had already saved the whales, by protecting over-exploited species during the 1960’s and 1970’s. This is the reality. The 1982 moratorium did not save any whales. All it did is create a major political problem at the IWC, and the IWC seems as if it will become extinct soon because of it.
Matsumoto, I think that the crux of our disagreement lies in this question: what is the right way to treat an ecosystem?
I want to see ecosystems preserved and I think we must be extremely careful about how we treat them. We’ve already devastated all kinds of ocean ecosystems very quickly - whaling was an example.
It seems that you think that the IWC is getting in the way of countries’ right to conduct whaling. I assume you don’t want rampant, population-destroying whaling, and that what you support is ’sustainable whaling’. The problem is that even this is a very precarious ask. There is so much science saying we need to be careful. Even the IWC, which has not traditionally been a conservation body, has stopped to take heed. Yet still the whalers are hammering at it all the time, trying to get it to let them whale as much as possible.
The thing is, there is no certainty that whale catches can be sustainable - especially since whaling involves a lot of ‘incidental’ and ‘illegal’ take (eg in recent years Japan’s whaling operations have killed a number of highly endangered western gray whales). Also, although sustainable catches could ‘theoretically’ be taken from depleted or endangered populations, the IWC has said for a long time that its objective is not just to protect whales from extinction, but to allow proper recovery of depleted stocks and to maintain abundance.
I think that the IWC is doing the right thing by taking this wider approach. It is much more important to look at the overall health of an ecosystem and to understand how whale populations change over time, rather than press the IWC to make estimates of whale populations to try and support catch limits.
I agree that this is what we should do: take precaution and look after fragile ecosystems. And don’t forget, as I said before, there are many additional threats faced by whales (climate change especially).
So many warnings and so many risks - including from many scientists from independent countries. The whaling issue could be, for once, a time when humans are not short-sighted and greedy and actually are careful to preserve our environment.
Mcfarm,
I have noticed and I understand. I also have family members who survived wartime tragedies.
You said “…The denial of a government and a people of a truth for decades is an indication of their propensity to tell the truth on other matters”.
So,you judge the present Japanese government and all of the Japanese people to be untrustworthy because of a past denial of a truth? For how long? Forever?
Most,if not all, governments and people,including Australia, have denied a truth at some point in time or another. Therefore,all governments and peoples propensity to tell the truth on other matters would be questionable.
However, in post #6 you said that “Truth,like beauty,is in the eye of the beholder….”. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they have denied one version of the truth?
In regards to the implication of racism. I was attempting,in as few words as possible, to emphasis that he was NOT Japanese or friendly to Greenpeace. So his comments would not be biased to either group. It was poorly written. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
Matt,
I agree, past whaling is a prime example of a major screw up, one of the worst. It was over-exploitation.
The crux from my perspective is that there is a difference in the way we look at the risk/benefit trade-off of permiting whaling. You and I can both see risks (to greater or lesser extent, based on our understanding), whereas probably I only can recognise any benefits, or at least think the benefits justify taking a certain level of risk.
We could argue about the levels of risk involved, but as of today we’re now at a point where the whaling nations are fed-up with trying to talk about this with your governments. Our governments are going to pursue whaling one way or the other, either in the IWC or through a different organization. Either way, whaling is going to happen. I’ll be interested to see what approach your governments take towards the IWC over the next 12 months. If I were anti-whaling, what I would be doing is this.
look to the scientific advice, and determine for which populations of whales the lowest risk from whaling is, and accept that this much needs to be conceded.
At the same time, by making a real concession to the whaling governments, get a concession in return with respect to other species for which there are greater associated risks from whaling, or something else that strikes your fancy.
The alternative is to not give an inch, and then become irrelevant to the international governance of whaling. If there is serious concern about the risks of whaling, then my approach is the only one to take.
PS, the gray whales that died around Japan died due to entanglement in fishing gear, not directed hunts.
FYI, Sato was in court today, and is reported to have said “Myself and Suzuki are responsible”, and sort of apologised, saying “I recognise that many people have been critical of our investigation which we took too far. I will reflect on what I should reflect on”.
He also took the opportunity to say that he wants the prosecutors office to do a reinvestigation of Greenpeace’s allegations of “embezzlement”, etc.
There is a picture of him in the article too:
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/trial/080701/trl0807011447002-n1.htm
Matsumoto, will you tell us what whale meat tastes like?
[...] 16, 2008 by Tim Norton In an update on our previous post, we now have more information on the two Greenpeace activists who were arrested in Japan following [...]