How Sea Shepherd lost battle against Japan’s whale hunters in Antarctic

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/23/sea-shepherd-loses-antarctic-battle-japan-whale-hunters

by Tomte • 9 years ago

76 45 9 years ago

It lost the "battle" by resorting to violence rather than policy and law.

commenter1• 9 years ago

No. It's stupid attacking the ships. Go after the people and their families. (Don't actually do that, but that's how you get things to change - make it personal.)

Fnoord8• 9 years ago

The ships aren't attacked by definition. Its just game theory and they're generally going for confrontation/fight. Well, they can't do that anymore, since the enemy has military-grade early warning system subsidized by the Japanese government.

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?

Fnoord8• 9 years ago

That's a wild statement given the facts, some of which you can read throughout the article.

* 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/

JumpCrisscross4• 9 years ago

They're generally not resorting to violence; they're blocking the boats

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-...

sandworm101• 9 years ago

I think it darker than simple consumption. The japanese like fish more than whale. On the grand scale, fish and whales compete with each other to consume calories from smaller creatures. More whales means less food for fish. They dont want to eat whale. They hunt whales because they want whales dead.

Tomte• 9 years ago

Are they violent? I used zo think that was their modus operandi, but „Confessions of an Eco-Terrorist“ paints a different picture.

Fnoord8• 9 years ago

If one can paint their opponent as irrational (violent, terrorists, culture haters) then one can make a personal attack of their opponent, causing a distraction of the issue at hand, shifting the blame (and debate), and ignoring cause and effect. Furthermore, one no longer has to listen to their opponent, and one can justify the means to resort to countermeasures (such as in this case subsidies). Its an age old trick with multiple fallacies at work.

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.

mcguire2• 9 years ago

It seems like the Japanese aren't all that interested in policy and law on this issue.

Simulacra• 9 years ago

I read the article and I do think with the sea Shepherd was doing was wrong. They were confronting Japanese whaling ships in a hostile act, and should have resorted to legal means.

a235• 9 years ago

The sea shepherds are the key in seeding the legal debate - they are documenting and exposing whale hunting as it is.

Without this documentation and tracking, the whalers will continue to hide from anyone's view.

pixelbill• 9 years ago

They have a HUGE bias, I doubt anything coming out of them is the actual truth.

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?

quantum_state• 9 years ago

People would want to work on to have an international treaty of banning whale hunting altogether ...

JumpCrisscross4• 9 years ago

People would want to work on to have an international treaty of banning whale hunting altogether

People have tried [1]. It's complicated.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Convention_for_t...

sathackr• 9 years ago

And to top that they have also made it an act of terrorism for anybody to approach within 500 metres of a whaling vessel.

The slippery slope that it seems the whole world is already sliding down.

fencepost• 9 years ago

So can anyone declare an act of terrorism? Can it be declared terrorism if an armed (almost by definition) whaling vessel approaches a protecting ship?

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?

Fnoord8• 9 years ago

Among academics, terrorism is defined by The Revised Academic Consensus Definition by Alex P. Schmid [1]. The source I normally refer to (terrorismanalysts.com) is down at this moment.

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...

dogma1138• 9 years ago

Yes although ramming whaling ships isn’t exactly a victimless crime.

rasz• 9 years ago

Obvious solution is to start sinking Japanese whaling ships, after all they already labeled you terrorist.

blondie9x• 9 years ago

It's false logic to assume that ending the killing of whales will lead to the International Community's condemnation of killing fish as well. Killing large game mammals is an entirely separate concern when compared to killing fish and other species that are used for sustenance and to feed the population. If the Japanese government is to acquiesce on this issue I do not feel as though the government should have concerns about pressure on other types of marine life that is seized for sustenance all over the world.

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.

ant6n• 9 years ago

Plus whales are (near?) sentient, while most fish are not.

trothamel• 9 years ago

[Citation needed], especially for the minke whales.

icc97• 9 years ago

It seems ugly logic but it makes sense. They don't want to stop any fishing. The more fish they get the more money they have to keep fishing. Plus the less money conservation groups have to focus on one section.

IBM• 9 years ago

Pretty sure the protection of whales (and other sea life) was being negotiated as part of TPP to at least be stronger than the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

simooooo• 9 years ago

Anyone know what this military equipment is?

tankenmate• 9 years ago

A reasonable guess would be spread spectrum radios for communication; they have lower narrow band spectral power output and they are harder to intercept the content of the transmissions, i.e. to determine what their plans are.

mcguire2• 9 years ago

Better radars?

"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."

SamReidHughes• 9 years ago

If killing animals for food is immoral at all, then whale meat is one of the least immoral forms of meat consumption there is. The reason is, you get a huge amount of meat per animal, and their lives are much better than those of livestock. Maybe better than minke whale is venison, since we need to cull the deer population anyway -- might as well eat it. Or maybe all hunting, moderated to prevent overhunting to extinction, is equally sound, because the animals would otherwise overpopulate and starve to death or get killed by some other predator. It might depend on whether there's some other predator in the food chain.

CryptoPunk• 9 years ago

Whales are so intelligent though. Their brains are very large, and it's possible that they possess languages.

How Sea Shepherd lost battle against Japan’s whale hunters in Antarctic

Related Stories