South Korea's whaling: Faux and cons

[논둑길맨발로]

South Korea's whaling: Faux and cons

Comments (106)

Activists protest at the IWC in Panama City

More from Richard

• Whales snared in ocean debris
• Whales, gas and climate: A gray tale
• Whaling: From 'bloody' to 'boring'?
• Rio: Worth the effort?

This is the eighth meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) that I've covered; so I'm always a bit chary of the possibility that over time I've become a more grumpy, wizened, curmudgeonly old cynic than the organisation's politics might merit.

So it's been refreshing to chat with a few first-timers this year - and confirm‎atory that some of them, after just three days of what's been a functional meeting by recent standards, already find the waters of hypocrisy and selective memory running deep and strong.

What's got the waters flowing stronger then ever is South Korea's proposal to begin whaling around its coast under regulations permitting hunting for scientific research.

Is science the rationale? South Korea's own statement here suggests it's not, admitting that pressure is coming from fishermen who say whales are eating too many fish, lowering their catches.

These are the same fishermen from communities near the town of Ulsan who routinely snare whales in their fishing nets, accidentally or not - perhaps as many as 150 per year - and are allowed under South Korean law to sell the meat to markets and restaurants.

Some minke whale stocks around South Korea are already severely depleted

The logical thing from their point of view would be to regularise what happens anyway, and make the hunting easier.

That was the implication of a submission that South Korea made a few years back as part of the "IWC peace process"; if Japanese villagers were allowed to hunt whales as part of an eventual compromise deal, they said, Koreans would demand the same right.

The peace process came to naught; but it's hard to escape the conclusion that the desire to satisfy a small but genuine whaling community is the real drive behind the scientific whaling proposal too, particularly with an election looming in December.

But whether or not the South Koreans really intend to go ahead with the plan, it's been easy for them to construct a case for it.

In the debate that followed the South Korean revelation here, delegate after delegate from anti-whaling governments cited and lauded the commercial whaling moratorium that their predecessors voted through in 1982.

Strangely, they all forgot to mention the bit of the moratorium wording where they promised to review it.

The South Koreans were happy to remind them; and to help any still suffering from the collective amnesia, it goes like this:

"This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits".

The Legalities of Whaling

• Objection - A country formally objects to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) moratorium, declaring itself exempt. Example: Norway
• Scientific - A nation issues unilateral "scientific permits"; any IWC member can do this. Example: Japan
• Indigenous (also known as Aboriginal subsistence) - IWC grants permits to indigenous groups for subsistence food. Example: Alaskan Inupiat

• Whales, gas and climate: A gray tale

Countries like South Korea and Japan are still waiting. Some whale stocks have indeed been re-assessed; but "considering modification" is not on the agenda of most IWC members, and they have no hesitation in making clear that it never will be.

Australia's commissioner Donna Petrochenko, for example, was as forthright as her populace would demand in declaring that "Australia is resolutely opposed to commercial whaling in any form" and "strongly supports the moratorium".

But that statement also makes clear that her government has no intention of honouring the international pledge it made 30 years ago. Nor does the US, UK, Germany, the Seychelles - yes, the Seychelles played a key role - or the rest of the roll call.

From a modern democratic point of view, they're quite right.

The world, as many say, has moved on, and a majority see whales as creatures to be hugged rather than harpooned. Few governments in Europe or Latin America would see their popularity rise by pledging to re-open the global whaling ban.

But what does it say to communities in South Korea, Japan, Greenland and so on who see whale hunting as quite normal?

South Korea mustered other arguments too.

On Tuesday, IWC governments voted to allow the Bequians of St Vincent and the Grenadines to continue hunting whales under "aboriginal subsistence" rules, designed for peoples with an established tradition.

The Bequians' tradition dates back about 130 years, to the time when Yankee whalers taught them how to do it.

Korea's, meanwhile, dates back 8-9,000 years - the oldest documented anywhere on the planet - with ancient rock art showing the unmistakeable coming together of harpoon and whale, and piles of bones testifying to their consumption.

But Koreans, unlike Bequians, aren't allowed to hunt anymore.

Both decisions are made according to the rules; but that's only OK if you think the rules are OK, which the Koreans don't.

The Korean "whales eat fish" argument is one of the most easily debunked in the book, and I'm sure the Koreans know it - as must the Japanese officials who used to deploy it as a justification for whaling.

But when anti-whaling countries here pointed out that it's nonsense, did they also recall that they had a chance four years ago to get Japan's signature on a conference motion saying it was nonsense, and blew it?

One delegate from a government that spoke vehemently in public against the South Korean proposal put it like this in private: "They're just frustrated".

And it makes scientific whaling their only legal option.

Are the Koreans genuinely intending to do it?

It's hard to tell. But what is clear is that the IWC's tangled and often conveniently forgotten history gives them reasons for real frustration, and the wherewithal to construct faux frustration if they choose.

As the Korean proposal puts it: "Good faith and pacta sunt servanda ('agreements must be kept') constitute the two fundamental principles of international relations."

Really?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18719512

Kill whales to help fishermen? That's South Korea's plan

Australian Customs Service

Japan's whaling fleet already takes minke whales, like this mother and calf, and South Korea wants to do so as well.

By Miguel Llanos, msnbc.com

When it comes to whaling, South Korea wants what Japan has: a loophole to hunt. Technically, the hunt would be for scientific research, but in reality it would eliminate competition for fishermen complaining about dwindling catches.

The U.S. on Thursday joined the list of nations opposing the move made Wednesday at the International Whaling Commission meeting in Panama.

Follow @msnbc_world

In its opening statement, the South Korean delegation said the nation plans to use the same loophole in the international ban on whaling that Japan has been using to sustain its whaling fleet and domestic demand for whale meat.

That loophole allows a nation to sell for consumption any whales killed for research into whale biology or population dynamics. 

 

 

South Korean fishermen "are experiencing disturbances in their fishing activities due to frequent occurrences of cetaceans in their fishing grounds and an increasing number of minke whales are eating away large amount of fish stocks," the delegation stated, adding that South Korea, too, had a whaling fleet and market for whale meat before the 1986 ban.

---

The U.S. delegation responded Thursday via Twitter. "US believes lethal scientific whaling is unnecessary," it tweeted.

Conservationists, for their part, said overfishing, not competition from whales, is responsible for depleted fish stocks around the world.

Anti-whaling activists and a Japanese whaling vessel squared off in a scuffle at sea. Msnbc.com's Dara Brown reports.

Moreover, the minke whales being targeted by South Korea are considered endangered, the World Wildlife Fund said.

"The resumption of whaling by Korea after a quarter of a century would be a huge step back," said Wendy Elliott, who's leading the WWF delegation at the Panama meeting.

"Korea already sells meat from whales caught in fishing gear, and we believe this move is a thinly veiled attempt by Korea to conduct commercial whaling under the guise of scientific research, similar to hunts conducted by Japan in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary," she added.

While it doesn't need specific permission to start "scientific whaling," South Korea said it had made a formal proposal to the commission's scientific committee.

That group could take a year or so to come up with its advice for South Korea, which is not bound by the recommendations.

Former Australian Environment Minister Ian Campbell, who is now on the board of the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd, said the organization would "have to get organized to go out to the oceans and save the whales off South Korea," Reuters reported. 

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/05/12583215-kill-whales-to-help-fishermen-thats-south-koreas-plan

Sea Shepherd Goes Against South Korea and Saves Whales

google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);

SHARE:

FB.Event.subscribe('edge.create', function(targetUrl) { _gaq.push(['_trackSocial', 'facebook', 'like', targetUrl]);});

Adjust text size:

google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);

Just yesterday, we reported on Korea's decision to begin hunting whales for research purposes. At least this is what they claim.

Apparently, neither other nations present at the International Whaling Commission nor the environmental group known as Sea Shepherd actually believe what Korea's representatives are saying.

Therefore, the latest pieces of news on this topic indicate that said anti-whaling organization intends to dispatch its fleet to South Korea's coastal waters as soon as possible, their goal being to safeguard the marine mammals living here.

As The Australian reports, Ian Campbell, one of the Sea Shepherd's leaders, told the press that: “We are going to have to find enough ships and enough money to head up to South Korea.”

Apparently, Ian Campbell also argued that his organization had no choice but to interfere in this issue because the Australian government, which was supposed to protect the marine wildlife in this part of the world, did nothing to own up to its responsibilities.

His exact words were: “This government, sadly for the whales of the world, effectively pulled up a white flag and entered a truce with the Japanese back in about 2008 when they decided not to have any more votes st the International Whaling Commission.”

As you probably can infer from Ian Campbell's statement, South Korea does nothing but follow in Japan's footsteps, seeing how the latter was successful in by-passing the laws that condemn whale hunting.

For those unaware, Japan is also quite fond of researching whales and therefore kills representatives of this species relatively often.

However, since all of their whaling activities are supposedly part of a scientific program, it is impossible to hold them legally responsible.

From where we stand, we can only hope that the Sea Shepherd will be successful in its mission and that both South Korea and Japan will soon give up on their whale “research” projects.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Sea-Shepherd-Goes-Against-South-Korea-and-Saves-Whales-279597.shtml