The Antarctic Treaty
The original Parties to the Treaty were the 12 nations active in the Antarctic during the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58. The Treaty was signed in Washington on 1 December 1959 and entered into force on 23 June 1961.
The Governments of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, the French Republic, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Union of South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America, recognizing that it is in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue for ever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord.
The now 47 Antarctic Treaty nations represent about two-thirds of the world's human population.
Article I
1. Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. There shall be prohibited, inter alia, any measure of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military manoeuvres, as well as the testing of any type of weapon.
2. The present Treaty shall not prevent the use of military personnel or equipment for scientific research or for any other peaceful purpose.
Japan has deployed military personnel on two security vessels sent to protect its Antarctic whaling fleet from intervention by the Sea Shepherd conservation group's flagship, Steve Irwin , its skipper Captain Paul Watson said.
The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) is the body responsible for the conservation of marine resources in the Southern Ocean. It is supposed to regulate the harvesting of, or research into, all living organisms that are found in the marine environment within the Convention that implements CCAMLR.
Protecting Antarctic Wildlife
Guidelines for visiting the Antarctic include ensuring that "wildlife and vegetation are not disturbed".
Visits to breeding wildlife are presently controlled by various codes of conduct which reflect the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty. These provisions outline, in relatively non-specific terms, ways of minimising disturbance to wildlife by suggesting practices such as not touching animals and keeping noise to a minimum during visits.
DNA sampling provides more data than can be obtained through opening a dead whale’s stomach. A series of whale scats gives a more complex picture of whale feeding habits and their internal parasites.
The Federal Court
The Federal Court in 2008 declared Japanese whaling in Australia’s Antarctic waters as unlawful under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Enforcement of the prohibition against whaling in the Australian Whale Sanctuary (AWS) under the EPBC Act rests on the shoulders of the Australian Government.
Any illegal vessels in the The Australian Whale Sanctuary, adjacent to the Australian Antarctic Territory, should find the perpetrators arrested by Australian customs for breaching Australian law. (Activities in the Australian Whale Sanctuary that may impact on whales, dolphins and porpoises may (?) require a permit - is this our Government's loophole for inaction?)
Killing whales or other species while in the Antarctic is a violation the Whale Sanctuary and the Antarctic Treaty. Any illegal activities should be stopped by our Australian Fisheries Officers.
However, Japan's illegal whaling vessels have been immune from such actions!
Japan's whale slaughter is internationally illegal, unlawful in Australian waters and their presence without permission is potentially dangerous to Australian citizens and the pristine marine environment.
The whaling factory ship and harpoons have been given de facto legality for so long that Japan's Prime Minister even believes they are quite within their right to be killing whales for whale meat in a whale sanctuary!
Japan's Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has asked Kevin Rudd to rein in the Sea Shepherd activists, describing their actions as "sabotage". Years of diplomacy have clearly been unsuccessful and have fallen on deaf ears if they ask us to assist their illegal fleet!
Tradition of eating whale meat?
Mr. Okada, Japan's Foreign Minister, is wrong when he says there is a Japanese tradition of eating whale meat. A few villages did eat whale for centuries but the average Japanese did not. Shore based commercial whaling was set up in Japan in 1911 by the Norwegians and it was the American General Douglas MacArthur who established the modern Antarctic pelagic whaling fleets.
Japan does not respect our passion for living whales, our anti-whaling policies, our own whale sanctuary, our AAT, so why would we be expected to respect their so-called tradition of killing whales? There is no Japanese tradition of killing whales in the Antarctic.
Scientific results?
The Japanese need to show scientific evidence of what they want to find out from each and every whale killed in the Whale Sanctuary, and validate the research results so far! Non-lethal alternatives could easily be provided, making their slaughter obsolete. This would finally dispel their hoax of "scientific research" killing, and their breach of the Antarctic Treaty terms.
Kevin Rudd should do what he promised to do before being elected - to be "tough" on Japan's illegal whalers and stop them. So far we have seen nothing but cooperation with Japan! There can be no excuses for inaction if the whalers approach Australian waters.
Responsibility for wrongs
The Japanese government also refuse to acknowledge or respect our sovereignty of the Australian Antarctic Territory, or our nearby whale sanctuary.
How magnanimous that it is assumed that Australians have moved on from needing an apology from the Japanese for the 1943 sinking of the hospital ship
Centaur. The Japanese people of today should not be shouldering the blame for the events of 66 years ago. However, an apology is about empathy and regret for the decisions made by their leaders in the past, just like Kevin Rudd said "sorry" to the stolen generation. There is no dispute in Japan's actual involvement in the ship's sinking.
The Japanese government also refuse to acknowledge or respect our sovereignty of the Australian Antarctic Territory, or our nearby whale sanctuary.
What more violations of International agreements does the Federal government need before they stop their empty threats of legal action and take direct action?
Comments
Milly (not verified)
Mon, 2009-12-28 10:37
Permalink
Australia has surrendered the Antarctic to Japan's economic powr
THE Rudd Government has reneged on a promise to send an Australian ship to monitor Japan's annual slaughter of 1000 minke, humpback and fin whales. For all his pre-election condemnation of Howard government's shallow anti-whaling policies, Rudd has failed the public miserably on what he was voted for - climate change and illegal whale slaughter!
Japan has sent a couple of "coast guard" security vessels down with the fleet. Since when is the coast of Japan in the Antarctic? It may impede Sea Shepherd's efforts, but ultimately it is increasing the frustration and costs to Japan. Their aim - to sink the whaling fleet economically! Our Antarctic EEZ is just being surrendered to Japan's economic power.
Peter Bright
Mon, 2009-12-28 19:11
Permalink
Japanese criminality down south
Milly (not verified)
Tue, 2009-12-29 10:25
Permalink
What "evils"?
Tigerquoll
Wed, 2009-12-30 13:38
Permalink
Kagakuteki Giman
Peter Bright
Wed, 2009-12-30 16:15
Permalink
Rudd bending ..
James Sinnamon
Thu, 2009-12-31 01:31
Permalink
Rudd "otherwise thoroughly decent"?
I held out hope that both would bring about worthwhile changes, but those hopes have been unrealised.
In Kevin Rudd's case, I find it hard to believe that he is "otherwise thoroughly decent". He has gone out of his way to inflict maximum harm on this society, the most glaring example being Australia's current record high rate of immigration.
In Barack Obama's case, it might be worth reading Russ Baker's new book "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America" proposes the same hypothesis for a number of other Presidents including President Obama. (For some more information, see "Week In Review: John Perkins & Russ Baker on Secret Empires" for brief article and see related video of interview on GRIT tv.) Russ Baker's hypothesis is that Obama is doing what the military-industrial complex, of which President Eisenhower warned, expects him to do and not what he would actually prefer to do.
All the same, I think we are still entitled to judge what Obama does at face value and at face value it is appalling.
Anonymous (not verified)
Fri, 2010-01-01 10:11
Permalink
Rudd bending
Anonymous (not verified)
Fri, 2010-01-01 15:17
Permalink
Our unremarkable "apologetic statesmen" won't be missed!
Tigerquoll
Thu, 2009-12-31 09:25
Permalink
Rudd rules ok! Participatory Democracy?
Rudd is doing what he wants, just like Howard did, just like Keating did, and like those did who came before. Rudd’s superiority complex makes him a control freak, which exacerbates his power. His tight knit foursome – Rudd, Swan, Gillard and Tanner have become "a leak-proof high synod" [Annabel Crabb's article 'A shape-shifter in the Lodge', 14 November 2009], which controls the Federal Cabinet.
The focus is on the leader with these issues, basically because leader has so much power and influence as to be able to pursue personal ambitions and fetishes. We voted for Rudd in November 2007. With all his promises and committees, he had the usual first six month honeymoon period, before the power went to his head and then voter disenfranchisement kicked in. With Labor in power at Federal and State level and the major opposition party in disarray, Rudd’s arrogant power has gone to his head.
In Australia, like most democracies, voters only get a chance at pragmatic democracy once every four years, or in the case of local government, once every five years. The rest of the time voters are disenfranchised and rightly frustrated with the disconnect between government and the people.
Participatory democracy is a misnomer. What we have in reality is Concentrated Occasional Democracy (COD) and it smells like rancid fish. Power is concentrated in one person. Power is also concentrated in a two party system, which precludes minor parties having a say, developing an effective opposition and which also denies new parties starting up to become an effective voice. The opportunity and prevalence of corruption and political influence from party donations perpetuates this concentration of power. We really have a political system that is akin to a neo-aristocracy.
So in response to Peter Bright‘s reply comment ‘Rudd bending’ yesterday, Rudd is doing what Rudd wants, just like Obama is doing what Obama wants. Aspects of each policy and execution may have merits of right or wrong, but the more important issue is that these leaders are acting undemocratically. No, neither of them is a puppet. They have a personal ideology and they are translating that ideology with public billions. Serious debate is only occurring in the media and given the media is also concentrated; the debate is shallow and dares not explore the root causes.
Our parliamentary system only allows these leaders to be removed after four years. I would liken their tenure to a superhighway, not a tightrope.
Tiger Quoll
Snowy River 3885
Australia
Peter Bright
Wed, 2009-12-30 22:01
Permalink
Japanese criminal arrogance compounded
wow item shop (not verified)
Sat, 2013-08-24 06:03
Permalink
Reply to comment | (We) can do better
I was curious if you ever considered changing the
page layout of your blog? Its very well written; I love
what you've got to say. But maybe you could [add (?- Ed)] a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better.
You've got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or two pictures.
Maybe you could space it out better?
Editorial comment : Whilst this comment is linked to a commercial site, of sorts, the comment is helpful, so thank you, "wow item shop." We agree that candobetter needs better structure and could cover the critical environmental and political issues more comprehensively. We hope to make some noticable progress towards this in the near future.
Please also feel encouraged to add your own thoughts to the discussion, whether supportive, critical or even opposed. as long as it adds to the discussion and contains nothing illegal, we won't censor. (Apart from spam) we haven't censored anything, yet.
Add comment