(35 Total References)
The Interpreter | Lowy Institute for International Policy
Michael Heazle proclaims both Rear Admiral Goldrick and myself to be wrong.
That is his right.
So what is it about the word 'sanctuary' that Japan and Michael Heazle
do not seem to understand?
I don't see anything broad or ambiguous about this.
A sanctuary is a sanctuary and a sanctuary for whales is a sanctuary for whales.
I fail to see why Mr Heazle
thinks I am being vague about this definition.
It is as simple to understand as simple gets.
It is somewhat strange to me that Mr Heazle
does not understand the term 'international community'.
The UN recognises the International Whaling Commission
as the authority on whales and whaling, so when the IWC
proclaims an area a sanctuary for whales, I think it means that, in the eyes of the international community, it is a sanctuary for whales.
Yes, there is a diversity of views within the IWC
but a vote is a vote and the decision was made to proclaim the waters around Antarctica an international sanctuary for whales.
Therefore it is legally a sanctuary for whales.
says the IWC
does not represent all the nations of the world and this is true.
Prince Albert of Monaco has suggested that responsibility for overseeing whaling be given to the UN and I agree.
Unfortunately that idea has not been adopted, so the status quo is that it is the decision for the IWC
, and the IWC
Japan does not adhere to its obligations to the IWC as Mr Heazle suggests, because Japan's so-called 'scientific research' whaling is bogus and everyone knows it.
We have witnessed the whales killed, brought onboard and quickly processed without a single scientific measurement taking place.
The number of whales killed under Japan's self-allotted scientific permits since 1987 is twenty times the number of whales killed under scientific permit by all nations from 1950 to date.
If there is no clear basis for legal action against Japan's activities in the Southern Ocean, as Mr Heazle states, then why is Australia, supported by New Zealand, taking Japan to the International Court of Justice?
Maybe Mr Heazle
should enlighten Prime Minister Gillard
because the Gillard Government clearly believes it does have the basis to challenge Japan's actions in the Sanctuary.
Japan's whaling operations are in contempt of an Australian Federal Court ruling in 2008 prohibiting Japan from killing whales in Australian Antarctic Territorial waters.
position is founded on science but there is evidence to suggest that this is not entirely true.
Mr Heazle has worked in Japan for many years as a teacher and journalist.
has a production company and produced a documentary on the IWC
, and his
views are very much influenced by his
field of expertise in Griffith University's
Department of International Business and Asian Studies.
In other words, he
has a pro-Japan and pro-business perspective, so of course he
will disagree with the activities of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
Mr Heazle states that he
is genuinely concerned about whale conservation and that the best way to ensure the protection of whales is to resume regulated whaling.
I suppose he
thinks the best way to save elephants and rhinos from poachers is to have a regulated slaughter of these animals, a kind of 'we have to kill the whales in order to save them' approach.
by Michael Heazle - 11 March 2013 9:06AM
Michael Heazle is an Associate Professor with the Griffith University School of Government and International Relations and the Griffith Asia Institute.
While I certainly support Rear Admiral Goldrick's condemnation of Sea Shepherd's actions in the Antarctic, I do not agree with either his
representation of Japan's whaling ambitions or the link he
makes between whaling and Japan's territorial tensions with China.
Japan's refusal to stop whaling is about much more than only the minority interests the Rear Admiral alludes to, while the connection he
draws between the Southern Ocean protests and China-Japan tensions is based on a narrow characterisation of Japan as a contemporary nation and society.
Iraq an intelligence failure?
Michael Heazle is an Associate Professor in Griffith University's School of Government and International Relations.
has written previously on the policy lessons of Iraq intelligence assessments.
Dr Michael Heazle is an Australian Research Council Post Doctoral Fellow with the Griffith Asia Institute at Griffith University.
He also teaches international relations and politics in the University's Department of International Business and Asian Studies.
Prior to his return to Australia in 2003, Dr Heazle taught a variety of subjects in the faculties of Economics and Business Administration at Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan.
He has researched and published in the areas of energy, human, and environmental security, policy making and the treatment of specialist advice, and China,Japan relations.
From 1992 to 2000, Dr Heazle was a regular contributor to the Far Eastern Economic Review, and wrote for a number of other domestic and international publications including the Asian Wall Street Journal, the Japan Times, the Courier Mail, and the Australian.
Asian Studies Association of Australia - Asian Currents, April 2004
When Michael Heazle graduated from Griffith University with his PhD in 2003, it was, in his words, "the end of one very long road but also the beginning of another even longer one.
Michael's PhD, A History of Scientific Uncertainty in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) , argues that policy makers in the IWC generally have accepted or rejected scientific advice on the basis of how well that advice matches or complements their individual political goals.
Michael's introduction to Japan came in 1981 when he visited his older brother in Sendai on the north-east coast of the main island.
Since then, he has returned to Japan at least six times working as a teacher and journalist.
Most recently he worked in Kyoto, teaching at a university to support his research but also setting up a small production company and making a documentary on the IWC.
Michael is now a sessional lecturer at Griffith's Department of International Business and Asian Studies. http://www.griffith.edu.au/text/school/gbs/ibas/home.html
Review: Scientific Uncertainty and the Politics of Whaling
By Michael Heazle
.Scientific Uncertainty and the Politics of Whaling.Seattle: University of Washington Press
, 2006.240 pp.ISBN: 0-295-98605-0 (trade cloth) Acid free paper.US$60.00. Michael Heazle, a Research Fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute at Griffith University in Australia, chronicles the history of whaling in the Antarctic oceans.
, writing from the perspective of an observer, rather than an involved or idealistic scientist, asks: "To what ends do governments and non governmental organizations use empirical scientific methods and why?"(Page 32) He
argues that "The actions of the IWC's
[International Whaling Commission] members at the 1964 meeting in Sandefjord clearly illustrate what this study is attempting to demonstrate: that the treatment of scientific advice by policy makers in the IWC
(and in other wildlife and environmental regimes) is determined almost entirely by how well it fits with individual priorities, rather than the extent (contrived, imagined, or otherwise) to which a piece of scientific research may or may not be said to accurately describe and explain reality."