Dear Jennifer,
Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd and many Australians have urged the new Rudd government to send the Navy to the country’s self proclaimed Antarctic territory , which is not recognised by other nations and which include a Whale Sanctuary to stop Japanese whaling.
The Austraslian Prime Minister will decide this week, whether to send the Navy and the long range aircraft or not to gather evidence for a case in the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
Japan’s Fisheries Agency is confident of a victory with the Minister stating in an ABC radio interview : "We will not tolerate any moves to obstruct our research whaling program, which is approved under an international treaty. In light of these treaties, denying international whaling authorised by the international community is unacceptable."
Australian international law specialist, Don Rothwell warned that naval patrols would breach the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which deemed Antarctica to be a demilitarised zone, and possibly spark an international incident.
Greenpeace urges Forum Island Country governments party to CITES to make a formal protest about Japan’s killing of humpbacks under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) claiming “The Japanese government is breaching this international treaty on trade in endangered species with their plans to import humpback whale meat into Japan.”
According to the same report in www.scoop.co.nz, "The CITES Secretariat has the power to pressure Japan to not kill any humpbacks through issuing a written caution to Japan; sending public notification through the Secretariat to all Parties of the issue; notifying Japan that it is in non-compliance and request a compliance action plan, and finally recommend a suspension of trade with Japan in CITES listed species.”
Cheers,
Ann
In Sweden
Latest news:
"Japan has announced it will defer plans to kill up to 50 humpback whales in the Southern Ocean this summer."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/21/2125804.htm
OK, they will receive a thanks mail for this from me!
" that Japan might kill only a handful"
This methinks would be a quite futile gesture, not satisfying anyone.
The Australian states: " Japan harpoons the US deal"
It's very unclear if the Japanese will abandon to hunt the humpbacks.
It seems like the Japanese government says that the plans to hunt the humpbacks will comtinue, however on Japanese environmental journalist stated :
"Mr Schieffer's claims of an agreement were supported by Japanese environmental journalist Junko Sakuma, who told The Australian that Japan was unlikely to kill the full quota of 50humpbacks.
Sakuma said she believed there had been debate within the Japanese Government over the humpback quota and that Japan might kill only a handful.
"They can use the US intervention as an excuse for changing their initial plan to hunt humpbacks, though they are very reluctant to listen to advice or suggestions by NGO peoples or even the Australian government officials," she said.
Sakuma cited the reduced size of the fleet's crew - 250, down 25 - as further evidence Japan was not planning to hunt 50 humpbacks"
If anyone has more information , please post it here ASAP, thanks!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22957346-2702,00.html
OK, I will have to take your word for it that this isn't the crude, populist politics at the expense of the Japanese, that it just happens to appear to be. Thanks
They are separate issues. You could pull out endless examples to argue about. The issue at hand here is the Japanese whaling, not organ harvesting in China, lashings for raped women in Saudi Arabia or the homeless at Christmas on Sydney's streets. Few would argue the gravity of numerous national and global issues. You do what you can and keep trying.
"The rights of animals over humans line is once again trotted out, without the recognition that people can care about both."
The point I think that Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor, was making was that, through Australia's actions it appears that Australia is more concerned with the whales killed by the Japanese in accordance with international agreements to which Australia itself has adhered, than the people who suffer from human rights abuses at the hands of governments like China.
He wasn't suggest that Australians don't care about both, just that it appears from Australias actions that whales are regarded as a more serious issue.
Or else what is the flaw in Sheridan's logic? Is it wrong to assume that the gravity of a matter will be reflected in the actions taken in response to it?
Australians seem quite capable of expressing different ideas and opinions about a particular topic. It is good we don't have press "censorship" and have reasonable levels of information available to us.
The rights of animals over humans line is once again trotted out, without the recognition that people can care about both.
Well done on your stance here Australia.