Whaling and NGOs II

The BLOG about whaling posted by Sophie made me curious and I wanted to do more research on the issue as it has been around for a while. Nevertheless we keep hearing updates regarding conflict between anti-whaling protesters and Japan. So I wanted to understand the depth of the problem. I do not want to take either side as this issue is a very controversial one. But we have to notice that both the Japanese authorities and anti-whaling protesters are acting under regulations of international agreements and Laws. As Sophie (2010, Feb) mentioned earlier. "The UN World Charter for Nature, section 21, empowers any nongovernmental organisation or individual to uphold international conservation law in areas beyond national jurisdiction and specifically on the high seas."(Monday, 22 February 2010 Whaling in Antarctica, The Sea Shepherd organisation are a group of anti whaling). This extraction does empowers Greenpeace and other NGOs united under the name of WHALEWATCH (40 NGOs) to try confront Japanese whalers in order to affect their abilities to hunt whales. The fact that international criminal laws in international waters are difficult to regulate does allow anti-whaling activists to assault and attack private Japanese Boats (Which are operating under the Institute of Cetacean Research) and usually allow to remain legally unchallenged by Japanese or international authorities. And Japanese authorities state that International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) Article VIII of the ICRW clearly states that: ‘…any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention…’. Both sides do have a strong argument and as long as Japan is acting within legal guidelines no one will be able to stop them. On the other hand it is claimed that Japanese whaling is based on scientific research. If some samples of whale meat are taken in the name of study and the rest of the whale would be thrown to rot in the pit rather than sold to Japanese consumers or restaurants? Would that be reasonable and justified by anti-whaling activists? The main argument arises within the issue of brutality against the animal and animal rights. No one seem to care what happens to the whale after the catch or how it affects the research. Similar tensions were raised in Great Britain when political debate regarding ban on fox hunting attracted attention of many activists. Any image of animal cruelty will raise many negative protests but any kind of those protests have to be justified and reasonable. The extreme actions by NGOs are attracting worldwide attention but are powerless unless the member states of International Whaling Commission (IWC) take action to extract sections of international agreements that allow countries like Japan to continue whaling. I personally think the actions of radical anti whaling protesters possess some amount of unreasonable assaults and criminal damage towards Japanese ships and crews. Some might disagree to the actions of Japanese, but even if Japanese are engaged in unreasonable whaling within the laws no NGO should be above the international criminal law. Maybe NGOs should direct their efforts in more reasonable anti whaling law making based on research rather than dangerous physical actions against the whaling ships crews. And this might result in NGO image damaging:

The head of ‘Sea Shepherd’ Paul Watson. Japan issued an arrest warrant due to his actions. But he insists that “As long as we are chasing them, they aren't killing whales”.

In 2008 two members of Japanese Greenpeace movement (Junichi Sato, 31, and Toru Suzuki, 41) were arrested by Japanese authorities for presenting the stolen whale meat as an evidence. the question is whether he was arrested for disclosing the truth and whether Japanese authorities need that truth. The act of theft took place first as he had to obtain the evidence, therefore the criminal element will always attract more negativity.