proclaims both Rear Admiral Goldrick and myself to be wrong.
That is his
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.