Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 September 3

= September 3 =

Whaling in Japan and??
After recently reading the Whaling in Japan wiki article I am curious why antiwhaling groups focus so much on Japan and not Norway or Iceland? I didn't even know what Norway and Iceland hunted whales until I read this article. 199.19.248.107 (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking without a source here, but from personal experience, here in Australia there has been over the years multiple reports of Japanese whalers entering Australian waters to whale, enforced by Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Maybe Norway and Iceland don't enter other country's waters? JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Japan does not hunt whales in Australian waters. Japan hunts whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary which surrounds Antarctica. Commercial whaling is prohibited in the Sanctuary which Japan does not infringe. Sleigh (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the waters are with the exclusive economic zone of the Australian Antarctic Territory, though this may not have any legal impact - see Antarctic Treaty System. Secondly, Sleigh, you concede that commercial whaling is prohibited in the sanctuary. Well, the International Court of Justice, in response to a case brought by Australia, ruled that Japan's whaling program did not meet the definition of "scientific", and was thus "commercial", which would make it a breach of the rules governing the sanctuary - see Whaling in Japan. But all this doesn't answer the OP's question - why are Norway and Iceland's whaling activities effectively ignored by those same groups which aggressively fight the Japanese program? 110.140.193.164 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Whaling in Norway, Iceland and the Faroes is not ignored by the protesters - but far fewer whales are killed than by the Japanese fleet, and (apart from Iceland) there is no commercial international marketing of the meat. For the same reason, they don't make much fuss about the small amount of whaling permitted in the USA. Wymspen (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Report: Norway Now Kills More Whales Than Japan and Iceland Combined.Foreign Policy, 14 June 2016 -- ToE 15:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the role of Australian territorial claims is paramount here. The Australian Antarctic Territory is not widely recognized by other countries, and presumably the same is true of the vast exclusive economic zone that they claim based on it.  This zone presumably has real value for other things besides hunting whales, such as mining, and I imagine as as the present Ice Age draws to a close i.e. Antarctica melts this value should greatly increase.  (Improved undersea remote technology could work too)  But as in the South China Sea, possession is nine-tenths of the law, and the rest is that failure to protest is the same as consent.  So as described in Whaling in Japan, the Rudd government of Australia was sending official ships to track and monitor Japanese whalers in the sanctuary before the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society started making headlines.  But there's only so much a government can do diplomatically, whereas SSCS, based in and "tolerated" by Australia, can attempt more.  Indeed, I remember seeing an episode of Whale Wars in which one of the international volunteers had to be taken off the crew abruptly for some reason, I forget why, and there was somebody from the New Zealand Navy ready to take over at a moment's notice.  (Using an allied military is a common thing in the English-speaking countries; see ECHELON)  So I absolutely think of these environmental activists as being the tip of the drill bit for some future derrick off the balmy shores of Antarctica, and to be sure, that's an Australian drill bit. Wnt (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This article from June this year, Norway Now Kills More Whales Than Japan And Iceland Combined. further highlights the discrepancy. The US based pressure group, Sea Shepherd, concentrates its efforts on Japanese whaling activity, although "Norway and Iceland openly defy the ban on commercial whaling, but Watson said that Sea Shepherd has not had the funding to support 'a two-front battle.'" Perhaps they see Japan as a winnable battle, as Norway and Iceland blatantly ignore the moratorium, whereas Japan attempts to circumvent it under the guise of scientific research, a position that may be more easily undermined.  Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * From where I stand, John Howard was still PM when Sea Shepard started to make headlines, so it's not possible that the Rudd government was sending ships before Sea Shepard was making headlines. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Norway isn't "ignoring" the moratorium, since Norway isn't bound by it. The whaling industry in Norway is whithering on the root regardless, for a lack of marked and recruitment to the industry - shame really, since whale meat can be very tasty when prepared fresh (source: OR (own experience)). WegianWarrior (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, Norway chose not to be bound by it. A matter of semantics really. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think WegianWarrior and Alansplodge have touched on a key point here. Even to those who regard opposition to whaling as hypocrisy or whatever, Norway and to some extent Iceland have a much more defendable position than Japan. The court case mentioned above really just demonstrated what many felt for a long time. (This is somewhat similar to the NPT, where many see those who never joined but have nukes are seen as different from those who did but are seen as wanting them.) The fact that Japan was heavily invested in the IWC process also meant they more so than other whalers were pushing other countries including landlocked ones to join to support their stance. (The fact that the US and others opposed to whaling were doing similar, and Japan found themselves in their current pickle partially due to US pressure is either forget or ignored, as is common people only seeing the negatives in their opponents.) When you consider countries like Australia and New Zealand, the fact that a lot of Japanese whaling is happening in Antartic waters whereas Norway is in the Atlantic obviously makes a difference. And frankly there's probably some degree of racism. Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * on that last sentence. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's certainly perceived to be so by the Japanese: '"Japanese people feel that, yes, maybe there is a little bit of racism in the way in which we are considered in comparison with the way Norway or other whaling nations are treated," said Noriko Hama, a professor of economics at Doshisha University in Kyoto.' National Geographic - Why Is Japan Whaling's Bogeyman When Norway Hunts Too? and "A senior official of the country's Fisheries Agency, Joji Morishita, told the programme that Japanese people felt much of the criticism was racist". BBC - Whaling 'safe for a century'. Alansplodge (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Some more discussion on the Japanese POV here albeit not addressing the Norway issue. Of course it isn't just Japanese, ,  (although it's not clear if the person still thinks there's racism).  Interesting Sea Shepard claims they are more active against Norway but they didn't specifically address why there actions against Japan get more attention even outside NZ/Australia. (For that matter their evidence they aren't benefiting from racism seems weak at best.)  Note that I didn't say all opposition or even a significant chunk is racism but there probably is some (i.e. it's a factor for at least some opponents). And considering the rhetoric you see in forums etc,  if these aren't trolls or plants it's difficult to claim there isn't some. Nil Einne (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)