apan has temporarily halted its whaling activities in the waters near Antarctica while officials seek to return two environmental activists to their anti-whaling vessel.
The standoff over the activists has raised the stakes between the Japanese fleet that hunts whales in southern waters for "scientific research" and environmental groups that are trying to end Japan's controversial whale hunt.
The five critical tasks of crisis leadership (sense making, decision making, meaning making, terminating, and learning) can be used to improve leadership in this crisis (Boin et al., 2005).
The standoff over the activists has raised the stakes between the Japanese fleet that hunts whales in southern waters for "scientific research" and environmental groups that are trying to end Japan's controversial whale hunt.
The five critical tasks of crisis leadership (sense making, decision making, meaning making, terminating, and learning) can be used to improve leadership in this crisis (Boin et al., 2005).
Sense making
"Sensemaking" helps to understand the root causes of this whaling standoff and to appraise the unfolding threat. On Tuesday Jan. 15, 2008, two members of the Sea Shepherd anti-whaling group -- Benjamin Potts, 28, of Australia and Giles Lane, 35, of Britain -- jumped from a rubber boat onto the deck of the Japanese harpoon ship Yushin Maru 2.
The founder of the Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson, claims that the two protesters were being held as "hostages" on the Japanese whaling vessel. Japan condemned the incident, accusing the activists of "piracy" and seeking to increase publicity for their cause.
In November, 2007 Japan dispatched its whaling fleet to Antarctica to kill about a thousand whales under a "scientific" whaling program that anti-whaling nations and environmental groups claim is a front for commercial whaling. In response, protest vessels have sought to disrupt Japan's whale hunt.
Australian and Japanese leaders appeared capable of creating accurate representations of the conflict. Finally, sensemaking was used by all parties to consider how the situation might unfold.
The founder of the Sea Shepherd, Paul Watson, claims that the two protesters were being held as "hostages" on the Japanese whaling vessel. Japan condemned the incident, accusing the activists of "piracy" and seeking to increase publicity for their cause.
In November, 2007 Japan dispatched its whaling fleet to Antarctica to kill about a thousand whales under a "scientific" whaling program that anti-whaling nations and environmental groups claim is a front for commercial whaling. In response, protest vessels have sought to disrupt Japan's whale hunt.
Australian and Japanese leaders appeared capable of creating accurate representations of the conflict. Finally, sensemaking was used by all parties to consider how the situation might unfold.
Decision making
On the evening of January 17, 2008, Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith resolved the three-day standoff which threatened to turn into an "international diplomatic crisis" by sending an Australian fisheries icebreaker (Oceanic Viking) to rescue the activists to their anti-whaling vessel.
The Sea Shepherd protesters Benjamin Potts and Giles Lane were returned to the environmental vessel named Steve Irwin, where they were greeted as heroes.
Meaning making
The Japanese government promised to release the two activities although it continues to reject Australian sovereignty in Antarctica and vows to continue whale harvesting. The Japanese authorities quickly provided details of how the two protesters were restrained with rope to the GPS mast of the Japanese whaling vessel.
This conflict occurred in the broader context of the Jan 15, 2008 Australian Federal Court ruling which ordered the Japanese whaling company, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, to restrain from killing, injuring, taking or interfering with whales in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in Antarctica. The Japanese Government rejected the ruling, as it does not recognise Australian sovereignty in the Southern Ocean. Sea Shepherd captain Paul Watson promised that the harrasment of the Japanese whalers would continue: We didn't acquiesce to any of the Japanese demands. We have got them back without any conditions and now we are going to continue harassing and chasing the Japanese fleet.
This conflict occurred in the broader context of the Jan 15, 2008 Australian Federal Court ruling which ordered the Japanese whaling company, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, to restrain from killing, injuring, taking or interfering with whales in the Australian Whale Sanctuary in Antarctica. The Japanese Government rejected the ruling, as it does not recognise Australian sovereignty in the Southern Ocean. Sea Shepherd captain Paul Watson promised that the harrasment of the Japanese whalers would continue: We didn't acquiesce to any of the Japanese demands. We have got them back without any conditions and now we are going to continue harassing and chasing the Japanese fleet.Terminating
Australia's interest in defusing the conflict was reinforced by Foreign Affairs Minister Smith who condemned any unlawful activities by the protesters. This was echoed by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's earlier calls for all sides to exercise maximum "calm and restraint". and seek more long term solutions to whale harvesting. As noted by Prime Minister Smith:
Prime Minister Rudd noted that Foreign Minister Stephen Smith was in constant talks with Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda to expedite the safe return of the environmental activists . Rudd emphasized the importance of proving that Japanese harvesting activities constitute commercial rather than scientific whaling.
Prime Minister Rudd noted that Foreign Minister Stephen Smith was in constant talks with Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda to expedite the safe return of the environmental activists . Rudd emphasized the importance of proving that Japanese harvesting activities constitute commercial rather than scientific whaling.
The key challenge is how do we bring about the end of commercial whaling, period, into the future - that's what I'm concerned about.
Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura said an examination of the confrontation is currently underway:
We need to go over the facts and have relevant authorities review what happened
However, recent reports note that the environmental groups and the Japanese whalers remain at loggerheads. Anti-whaling campaigners are vowing more confrontations while the Japanese whalers are trying to force the protesters to leave the area by exhausting their fuel supplies. Neither the environemental groups nor Japanese and Australian leaders can completely control the evolution of this conflict which remains highly dangerous due to the frigid waters and remote location.
Learning
While it is too early to determine the final political and organizational lessons drawn from this whaling standoff, it appears that the conflict provides opportunities for resolving the whaling dispute in the long term. Greenpeace is currently capturing the killing of whales on film with the hope of influencing public opinion in Japan. While Japan insists that the hunt for nearly 1,000 minke and fin whales will continue in the Antarctic, Japan has previously curtailed whale harvesting due to international condemnation. For example, they abandoned the cull of 50 humpback whales after global pressure and a formal diplomatic protest by 31 nations.
The Australian Federal Police promised a full investigation although no charges have been laid.
The Australian Federal Police promised a full investigation although no charges have been laid.
1 comment:
Whaling is such a controversial issue which makes it that much easier for the two sides to become split. When it comes to our negotiation, I feel that we will all be adequately prepared and hope that the process will not remain black and white. If countries are ethical and honest in their interests then we should have no problem reaching a consensus. Special whaling for scientific purposes is something that I hope will actually be fairly easy to agree on. If we decide to lift the moratorium and as long as countries are able to sustain themselves it seems to me that the parties would be willing to ban imports of whale products. This might run the possibility of a domestic monopoly control of the whale market and encourage other whaling countries to join the IWC if they wanted access to those markets. Currently, it is an issue chiefly because Japan uses it as a loophole to whale within the conventions of the IWC. All of Japan’s whaling is done for scientific purposes, though the meat still ends up being sold afterwards. Once commercial whaling becomes viable again for countries, even if it’s just within their territorial waters, the cause will largely become redundant. This negotiation is a chance to get everyone on the same page in regards to whaling. If everything takes a turn for the worst and we cannot reach an agreement I might suggest that we need a powerful (international) scientific committee to take charge and say how many of which species, of what age/size/sex can be safely taken from which populations so no bias from nationally specified research facilities will be able available. Lately though, it doesn’t seem that in the real world that we will be able to reach an universal agreement. Arguments from both sides seem rather justified but this only serves as a simplified solution to an issue that is out-of-sight and out-of-mind for most Americans. Ultimately, a philosophical change directed towards sustainability is warranted in the long run as compared to the short-term economical benefits.
Post a Comment