|
Post by LSDeep on Jun 15, 2005 8:10:16 GMT -5
TOKYO, Japan (14 June 2005) -- A week ahead of the annual IWC meeting, Japan is pushing for secret ballots to hide small countries that have taken bribes to vote against whale conservation.
Governments and eco groups around the world that oppose the resumption of commercial whaling want tranparency to ensure that countries are held accountable for voting to kill whales rather than protect them.
Ironically, many of the countries that have taken bribes from Japan to vote for the resumption of commercial whaling are small islands that rely heavily on tourism and use the concept of marine conservation to promote their nations as eco-friendly holiday destinations where dive travelers and tourists are invited to enjoy whale watching, dolphin encounters, and diving and snorkeling on pristine reefs.
Eco groups such as Cyber Diver Society (CDS) argue that countries cannot have it both ways, that governments cannot be both for and against marine conservation at the same time.
To pressure governments to stop the money-driven hypocrisy that helps Japan kill whales, CDS launched a boycott of seven small island nations - Palau, Antigua, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts, St. Lucia and St. Vincent - that are popular dive destinations and rely heavily on tourism.
The campaign has received wide support in Japan where the vast majority of citizens do not eat whale and do not support attempts by ultranationists to equate whaling with being Japanese.
"Most Japanese don't wake up every morning hungering for whale meat," said conservation activist Ken Watanabe. "In fact, most Japanese don't eat whale and don't want to have anything to do with the political extremists, fishing industry bosses and organized crime gangs that smell big money poisoning our school children with toxic whale meat."
[To vote against the resumption of commercial whaling, go to CDNN ACT NOW.] COPYRIGHT © CDNN - CYBER DIVER NEWS NETWORK
|
|
|
Post by tekmac on Jun 15, 2005 8:20:25 GMT -5
By Ed Stoddard
Johannesburg - South Africa will next week seek to defeat a Japanese proposal to expand whale hunting as it would threaten a growing industry catering to people who enjoy watching the huge mammals, a senior official said.
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is due to vote on Japan's plans at a meeting in South Korea from June 20-24.
"The South African position is completely opposed to Japan's and we will make that very clear," Horst Kleinschmidt, South Africa's commissioner on the IWC, told Reuters in an interview.
"History tells us that the hunt is primarily in southern hemisphere oceans," he said on Monday.
Japan has threatened to leave the 62-nation body if it votes against its expansion plans.
"It (the vote) will be very close," Kleinschmidt conceded, echoing comments last week by Australian Environment Minister Ian Campbell, whose country also opposes Tokyo's proposal.
Japan can count on support from whaling nations Norway and Iceland and some developing countries but does not get much sympathy from rich western nations where environmental lobbies are strong.
It wants to increase its annual intake of minke whales to 935 from 440 and expand its hunt to include 10 fin whales a year for the next two years. By 2007-08, Japan wants to be allowed to hunt 40 fin whales and 50 humpback whales. "We are deeply involved in whale watching as an industry so we would like to see the most rapid increase in the number of whales," said Kleinschmidt, who is also IWC deputy chairperson.
"We don't have the numbers on our shoreline that we had 40 or 50 years ago because of overkilling in the past," he said.
|
|
|
Post by LSDeep on Jun 18, 2005 5:51:40 GMT -5
Japan fires first shots in whale debate 18.06.05 Japan has accused New Zealand and Australia of being fanatical in their opposition to whaling.
The Asian economic giant is also threatening to walk away from the International Whaling Commission if it can't expand its whale hunt, done under the guise of "scientific research".
"Countries such as Australia and New Zealand say they would not let a single whale be hunted no matter how healthy whale stocks are," said Hideki Moronuki of Japan's Fisheries Agency.
"These fanatic anti-whaling countries may also include Italy, Germany and Britain. But there are some other anti-whaling countries that are a bit cooler," he said.
But Conservation Minister Chris Carter, who heads to the annual IWC meeting in Korea today, called Mr Moronuki's comments "extremist" and "militant" and said he did not believe they represented Japan's official position.
"We are committed to whale conservation because they are not a plentiful species, they are a much endangered species, and I'm appalled that Japan would engage in such militant rhetoric," he said.
"I'm interested in arguing the conservation values of protecting whales and the economic value."
Mr Carter said a recent study showed whale-watching was worth around $120 million to New Zealand.
He said Mr Moronuki's comments did not provide a "good framework for rational debate" just as voting at the IWC was about to begin and Japan was about to seek double the number of minke whales killed in its "scientific research" - up from 440 now - and widen the programme to include humpbacks and fin whales.
Japan has little hope of overturning the ban on whale hunting, which requires a three-quarters majority vote of the 62 IWC countries, but will again try to introduce secret ballots. That is seen by anti-whaling nations as Japan's way of trying to protect countries likely to vote with it. Japan has been accused of buying votes.
Mr Carter said the votes this year were "extremely tight" and could balance out at 31-31 on whether Japan could expand its research programme.
Mr Moronuki said if all anti-whaling nations were as hard-line as Australia and New Zealand, Japan would "have no reason to stay at the IWC".
- Agencies, Herald reporter
|
|
|
Post by LSDeep on Jun 18, 2005 5:54:33 GMT -5
By Charles Clover, Environment Editor (Filed: 18/06/2005)
Britain has made a formal protest to the Japanese government over its plans to allow the killing of endangered humpback and fin whales. Microsoft
Ben Bradshaw, the junior environment minister, who will attend a meeting of the International Whaling Commission on Monday, said the Government was making a diplomatic protest because Japan and Iceland's "scientific" whaling programme was unacceptable.
Australia, New Zealand and Germany were also involved in the letter condemning the increase in Japan's whaling programme.
Japan and Iceland hunt whales under a loophole in the global ban on whaling that has prevailed since 1986, while Norway conducts commercial whaling after objecting to the ban.
At least 2,137 whales will be hunted this year, with Norway catching 797, Iceland 25 and Japan 1,315. Most will be minke whales, but with some fin, and for the first time since the ban, humpback whales.
Japan and its allies argue that whale stocks have recovered so much that they endanger fish stocks. Britain says the scientific evidence for this is tenuous at best.
Mr Bradshaw said: "These nations are on the wrong side of history. Scientific whaling plans are just an excuse for commercial whaling. You don't need to kill whales in order to understand them."
Pro-whaling nations, led by Japan, are expected to win a majority at the meeting in South Korea of 60 countries with the accession of Kirabati, Nauru, Tuvalu, Ivory Coast and Gabon, all suspected of having received lavish aid donations from Japan.
|
|
|
Post by LSDeep on Jun 21, 2005 9:28:09 GMT -5
By Richard Black BBC Environment correspondent, Ulsan, South Korea
Pro-whaling nations have lost two early votes as this year's International Whaling Commission meeting began.
Conservationists feared Japan, boosted by four new members, might be able to command a pro-whaling majority.
But Japan lost votes on a proposal to ban the discussion of new whale sanctuaries, and a procedural motion.
But a number of controversial proposals remain on the table, such as abandoning the IWC's programme on whale welfare, which looks at killing methods.
If Japan is unable to command a majority here, as it had hoped, it could play its final card and leave the IWC altogether.
This option would have far reaching implications for conservation and perhaps for Japan's relations with other countries such as Australia and Britain with whom it is generally on friendly terms.
Conservation groups are concerned at the impact on whales and their close relatives such as dolphins and porpoises.
Pro-whaling nations have lost two early votes as this year's International Whaling Commission meeting began.
Conservationists feared Japan, boosted by four new members, might be able to command a pro-whaling majority.
But Japan lost votes on a proposal to ban the discussion of new whale sanctuaries, and a procedural motion.
But a number of controversial proposals remain on the table, such as abandoning the IWC's programme on whale welfare, which looks at killing methods.
If Japan is unable to command a majority here, as it had hoped, it could play its final card and leave the IWC altogether.
This option would have far reaching implications for conservation and perhaps for Japan's relations with other countries such as Australia and Britain with whom it is generally on friendly terms.
Conservation groups are concerned at the impact on whales and their close relatives such as dolphins and porpoises.
That view was challenged by Yoshimasa Hayashi, a member of Japan's upper house.
"Japanese ODA [Overseas Development Aid] is decided by the government by consultation with the ruling party, and that doesn't include anything about a pro- or anti-whaling stance," he told BBC News.
In fact, he said, nations which oppose whaling, such as Australia and the United Kingdom, recruit their allies into the IWC.
"Hungary and Czech Republic have no history of whaling, and they joined IWC after the moratorium."
'Research killing'
The moratorium, and what should come after it, is the really big issue facing IWC delegates.
It came into effect in 1986 after research showed that whale stocks worldwide were in serious decline, as a result of unregulated catches for meat and oil.
Japan abides by the moratorium on commercial whaling, but catches around 800 of the mammals each year for a programme of "scientific research", as it is allowed to under the international whaling convention.
The meat from those whales ends up in the stomachs of Japanese people; and critics say the scientific programme is just commercial whaling in disguise.
Iceland runs a similar, much smaller scheme, whereas Norway objected to the moratorium when it came into place, and catches several hundred whales each year.
The moratorium was seen as a stop-gap measure when it came into place, and since 1990 discussions have been going on about a replacement, the Revised Management Scheme (RMS), which would allow some degree of commercial hunting on a sustainable basis.
A version of the RMS will be proposed at this year's meeting; but Japan is expected to reject several of its components, such as what it regards as an over-zealous inspection regime, and present its own version instead.
Changes afoot?
Overturning the moratorium and adopting the RMS would require a three-quarters majority, and Japan is extremely unlikely to command that level of support.
But a simple majority would permit significant changes to the way the IWC works, and, therefore, to whaling regulations.
"Japan has indicated that it will delete from the agenda the issue of small cetaceans - such as dolphins and porpoises - and in fact the IWC is a very important source of advice on these animals," said Mark Simmonds.
Currently these creatures are not regulated by the IWC, but its scientists study them - which Japan says is outside the commission's remit.
"They can issue resolutions in favour of things which hitherto the commission would not have been in favour of; for example, a majority could congratulate Japan on its so-called scientific research programme," added Dr Simmonds.
Japan has also said it will delete agenda items relating to welfare - such as killing methods - whale-watching, and the creation of new sanctuaries.
It also plans to introduce secret ballots, and could theoretically force non-governmental conservation groups out of the meetings.
Many of those conservation groups believe the situation for whales and related species is more serious now that at any time before the moratorium was imposed.
The IWC's four new members will not be allowed to vote unless they have paid their subscriptions; conservation groups are hoping that Cameroon, Gambia and Nauru and Togo have left their cheque books at home, and bought cetaceans a year's grace.
|
|
|
Post by LSDeep on Jul 5, 2005 10:10:37 GMT -5
KOROR, Palau (4 July 2005) -- Propped up by bribes from Japan, Palau is flexing its Tokyo enhanced muscle in opposition to whale conservation despite diver and surfer boycotts by CDNN and Hawaii-based groups.
"We definitely have to support Japan," said Palau Vice Speaker Okada Techitong. "The Japanese government is helping us with millions of grants and aid. The Japanese visitors are one of our top tourists here."
What Techitong neglected to mention is that many Japanese consumers also oppose Japan's small but influential group of extreme right-wing ultranationalists who are attempting to resume commercial whaling on behalf of the country's failed fishing industry which has overfished coastal edible fish species.
"Techitong's rhetoric reflects the same old Japanese "us against the Western barbarians" party line," said CDNN Managing Editor Freeman Washington. "It's the same onslaught of nationalist propaganda that fanned the flames of Japan's barbaric atrocities during World War 2," added Washington.
"After the war, the world learned that Japanese citizens never supported Japan's imperialist agenda to rule the world by violence," Washington explained. "Thanks to the internet, we are learning in real time that Japanese citizens oppose the whale killing coalition of extreme right-wing politicians, 'yakuza' organized criminal gangs, fishing industry bosses and Japan's whaling puppets including Palau and a half dozen increasingly unpopular dive destinations in the Caribbean."
Ken Watanabe, a Japanese environmentalist also critized Japanese ultranationalist politicians.
"People everywhere need to fully understand this issue is absolutely not about East versus West, about Japan against the world," said Ken Watanabe, a Japanese anti-whaling activist. "This is about people in Japan and around the world who really care about protecting marine wildlife against corrupt politicans and money-driven political hypocrisy in Japan, Palau and elsewhere."
Palau President Tommy Remengesau vehemently denies that Palau's position on commercial whaling has anything to do with financial assistance from Japan.
Remengesau says that Palau's stance on commercial whaling reflects scientific studies that have yet to be completed.
According to Cyber Diver Society (CDS), that's a signal that Palau will follow Nauru and endorse the ludicrous Japanese psuedo-scientific propaganda that whales are an environmental negative because "they eat all our fish."
"For thousands and thousands of years, the sea was full of whales and fish," said CDS Vice President Naoko Sato. "Now Japanese politicans bought and paid for by the fishing industry, and puppet presidents in Palau and Nauru want to blame whales for the industrial overfishing by Japan's corrupt and mismanaged fishing industry? Nobody in Japan or anywehre else is so stupid to believe that..."
Still, politicians in Palau are betting that tourists don't really care about protecting marine wildlife.
"I think tourists come for different reasons. Palau is a beautiful place," said Del. Noah Idechong, chairman of the House Committee on Resources and Development.
So far, CDNN has collected over 12,000 letters from divers stating they will boycott Palau. Source-CDNN
|
|
|
Post by tekmac on Jul 6, 2005 7:53:46 GMT -5
Reykjavik, Iceland 5 July 2005 -- Greenpeace today strongly criticised the Icelandic government' s decision to issue quotas to hunt whales for the third year running. The government has just granted permission for 39 minke whales to be killed in the 2005 hunt. The Icelandic go ahead comes just 2 weeks after so-called 'scientific whaling' was condemned by the International Whaling Commission at its 2005 meeting in Ulsan, Korea. Greenpeace International oceans campaigner John Frizell said: "Iceland's whaling programme provides no money, no useful science, and could seriously damage both the country’s tourist industry and its international reputation. What’s more, domestic public opinion increasingly supports whale watching rather than whale killing.” Like Japan, Iceland has been carrying out whaling under the guise of scientific research but the meat and blubber ends up being pushed to the commercial market. However, the market for whale meat and blubber in Iceland is small and is decreasing. Only a quarter of last year's catch was sold. Iceland' s freezers and storage are full with up to 40 tonnes of unsold whale meat and blubber from the 2003 and 2004 hunts. The Icelandic Tourist Association and whale watching operators have made it clear that whaling damages the reputation of the nation and has a negative impact on tourism. In recent years, tourism has become a major source of income in Iceland; whale watching alone attracts around 82,000 tourists annually and is worth more than $18 million USD a year. (1) “Whaling is just one of the threats from humanity facing whales today – they’re also threatened by pollution, entanglement in fishing nets, and the effects of climate change. Iceland should stop whaling now, and choose the sustainable path that also makes scientific and business sense; whale watching," said Frizell. Iceland’s 2003/2004 hunts took 61 minke whales in total instead of the original quota of 500, which included 200 fin and 100 sei whales. The reduced catch was the result of a combination of whalers being refused permission to export their catches, strong domestic criticism and a markedly reduced market for whale goods in Iceland. For further information contact: Gina Sanchez, Greenpeace International Communications on +31 627 000064 Notes to editors: (1) In 2003, Greenpeace launched a pledge asking people to consider a holiday in Iceland if whaling was stopped. Over 67,000 people have taken the pledge so far - this represents $78.8million USD in tourism value as opposed to $4million from commercial whaling at its peak. The offer, presented by Greenpeace to the Icelandic government, clearly shows the economic and environmental gain of choosing sustainable tourism over whaling. Read more on www.icelandwhalespledge.com Source - www.greenpeace.org/
|
|