JAPAN has told the UN's top court that Australia's anti-whaling stance is part of a 'civilising mission and moral crusade' that is totally out of place in the modern world.
That's according to Sky News, and I couldn't agree more. The article continues...
Tokyo didn't hold back in its opening submission to the 16 judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on Tuesday...
'In a world with diverse civilisations and traditions, international law cannot become an instrument for imposing the cultural preference of some at the expense of others.'
The deputy foreign minister argued Japan had long lived in harmony with nature and it would be the last country to misuse marine resources.
'Australia can't impose its will on other nations nor change the International Whaling Commission (IWC) into an organisation opposed to whaling,' he said.
Tokyo argues killing 850 minke whales in the Southern Ocean each year under JARPA won't endanger stocks.
Professor Akhavan on Tuesday said Japan stood unfairly accused of 30 years of defiance and deception, but Australia's position was based on a belief 'that whales are unique, sacred, charismatic mammals that should never be killed'.
Indeed, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established in 1948 at the initiative of the United States to establish a new world order in whaling. Initially 15 governments were party to the IWC with Japan at the time under occupation and without the right to join.
The Commission’s objectives included safeguarding the great natural resources represented by whale stocks and providing for the “orderly development of the whaling industry” recognising that whale stocks will increase if whaling is properly regulated.
But by the 1960s an anti-whaling movement had emerged in the West and the IWC focus started to change. In 1972, at the United Nations Human Environmental Conference held in Stockholm, the United States lobbied for a moratorium on commercial whaling; a moratorium that came into effect ten years later.
Japan initially took action to be exempt from the moratorium in accordance with Article V of the convention. Japan made the case that the moratorium infringed upon provisions within the convention in particular that decisions of the IWC be based on scientific findings – at the time the scientific recommendation was that the moratorium was unnecessary – and take into consideration the interests of consumers of whale product.
The United States threatened that unless Japan withdrew its objection it would revoke fishing allocation for Japanese trawlers off the west coast of Alaska. Japan withdrew its objection, but the US nevertheless phased out its fishing allocation to Japan.
As the 21st Century becomes the Asian Century it will be interesting to see the extent to which history is re-interpreted and the moralising of the west increasingly seen for what it is.
***
Read more on whaling and Aussie hypocrisy at https://climatelab.com.au/tag/whale/
The picture is of raw whale, part of a mean I enjoyed in Tokyo in September 2008.
[...] Australia has taken Japan to the International Court of Justice disputing a basis of its whaling program – that it is scientific. You wrote about this recently in the blog post “Japan Attacks Aussie Moralising on Whaling”. [...]
Look up the definition of depredation Graeme,
Synonyms are such things as rape, burglary, laying waste etc. . .
Wow, this thread has been an eye opener to me. It's a bit like the one at Deltoid about sea level. No way would the Deltoidians actually consider the alternatives to their preset views, and our conversation went round and round in circles. That's what's happening here, I think that we seem to be butting up against some sort of psychological barrier.
Dave, yes, of course eating means death. I have noted that several times and I have also said I accept that is part and parcel of life on earth. I don't have any real issue with that though I suppose I could wish it were otherwise. I'm not suggesting we don't eat meat either. I'm saying nothing more than that we could approach the issue with a different mindset - one in which our taste buds are not the only arbiter of our relationship with so many other species.
The point about veganism, or vegetarianism in many cases, is not so much that it has no negative impact on animals. That's almost impossible as you observe. Rather, it is about doing as much as an individual can do to reasonably limit the negative impact.
Debbie, that's a confused and bizarre post. I won't comment beyond noting that depredation does not mean depraved. And no I am not picking on the Japanese specifically in terms of human depredation, but please, the subject here is the actions of Japan in avoiding an obligation imposed upon them. So of course much of my commentary is directed at them specifically.
They are in the wrong.
So Graeme?
In this instance is the 'human depredation' the Japanese and is the 'other species' the Minke Whales?
Does that mean if anyone condones the practice of eating whale meat they are therefore automatically 'depraved'?
You are again asking very wide ranging questions for a rather specific topic.
As Dave pointed out above....your style of questioning immediately opens up a much wider (and largely irrelevant) topic.
If your objections to whaling are connected to something other than the court case then you need to be honest about that.
Otherwise....I would have to agree with Larry and suggest that you are attempting to use a strawman argument.
I think that the point about 'moralising' that began this long thread is still valid.
I don't think anyone here would disagree that there has probably been been some use of legal loopholes.
Luke's comment about sovereign rights is also a bit O/T in relation to the original post.
This is after all an International case via the IWC.
The Aus govt spokespeople made it very clear that this case went in this direction because there is no challenge re 'sovereign rights' and Australia has a very good political relationship with Japan. They specifically stated that they wanted the case heard by the IWC and did not see it as 'Australia vs Japan".