Regarding the latest IWC meeting in Morocco, I hope you followed the blog reports from Paul Spong of Orcalab, from the link on the main page of our site.

One of the things you'll read there is also reflected in many news stories which are now on the international wire services, with titles like:

"Greenpeace and WWF Give Conditional Support for Whaling Plan"

Greenpeace International did seemingly endorse a compromise proposal to allow some commercial whaling, in the hopes of reducing the total number of whales killed. I don't want to get heavily on their case about that because some of them are my friends and I know their intentions are good. So saying, Greenpeace Foundation - this organization - does NOT support commercial whaling and doesn't plan to.

The real world is a complicated place, and some of those trying to negotiate a compromise sincerely believe they are looking out for the whales' best interests.

The problem is that the world IS a complicated place, and one must be careful of getting caught up in pursuing "paper victories"; that is, achievements which look good on paper but which won't actually constrain the actions of those who would kill whales. Japan's past and present actions make it abundantly clear that it has nothing but contempt for treaty agreements; and the blurry boundaries between its government, corporations, and yakuza are hard to appreciate until you've actually tracked how business is done there.

Moreover, is it the role of the "Greenpeace" movement to be advocates or compromisers? It's a valid question. I have been told (off the record) many times by people working within agencies, and within other nations, to keep the pressure on so that when compromise is finally reached, it is closer to the "pro-earth" side of the balance. If one side of the debate is people who want to blast whales with exploding harpoons, and the other side of the debate is championed by those who think SOME blasting of whales is OK, where does the middle ground then fall?

In our view, "greenpeace" was not created to be the compromise group, but to be a no-apologies advocate for life on earth.

There is no doubt that the course of human affairs will always involve compromise; we just don't think that's the proper role of "greenpeace". People - in my experience - don't donate money to "greenpeace" groups in order for us to decide how much whaling is OK. They donate because "greenpeace" is supposed to advocate for the sacred, for the immeasurably deep value of wild nature and other beings, and by its uncompromising positions to help force the inevitable compromises more in favor of those other beings and the natural world.

And that's what we will continue to do.

But now getting from generalities to specifics, let me note that the entire notion of compromising with the corrupt whaling policies of Japan is abhorrent. It represents a massive conceptual disconnect with reality, an incongruency. Japan does not deserve to be treated as a law-abiding nation on the whaling issue. Rather, for its whaling history it deserves the equivalent of Nuremberg trials for environmental atrocity, and by all means quote me on that.

To quote our own whaling campaign page: "After the fall of the USSR, courageous Russian scientists produced the voluminous real data on Soviet whaling during the '50's, '60's, and '70's. The USSR and Japan had jointly conspired to wipe out most of the world's large whales. More than 50,000 humpbacks, and similar high numbers of blue, fin, and right whales, were killed by the USSR and sold to Japan illegally. One may only wonder at the level of illegal kill which occurred during that period by Japan's own whaling ships, because the individuals and firms controlling that end of the conspiracy were never exposed; and probably still control much of the industry. The distinction between business and government is very blurry in Japan, and in the case of whaling there has obviously been a longstanding complicity which continues to this day."

So Japan was never called to account for cynically conspiring - over decades - to wipe out whale populations while a member of the IWC. Those populations of whales are still mostly gone. Yet Japan has the gall - and that's not too strong a word - to now insist on the imprimatur of legality from the IWC, even after decades of conducting illicit commercial whaling under fraud and an IWC technicality.

Perhaps it's not surprising that Japan's corrupt agencies and practices - and these are legion even if only whaling is concerned - try their hardest to succeed. The amazing thing is that many are now giving them a "pass" on it. It's as though the world feels there are "bigger fish to fry" in terms of issues and wants the troublesome and visible "whaling" spat to simply go away.

No.

It's alright to say "no" to Japan. In fact, I'll see that and raise to "Hell No."

So let's talk instead of damages and reparations which Japan owes the world for illegally and dishonestly pillaging whale populations for decades. For smuggling whalemeat from dummy businesses around the world. For selling endangered whales freely in its markets until EarthTrust's DNA expose's busted them. And for running a fraudulent "scientific" kill to this day to stock its supermarket shelves with whalemeat shot in sanctuary waters. Lets apply similar "accountability" principles to Japan as are now being used to force BP to pony up money for the real damages of the oil spill, and create a forum in which Japan may be sued. No time like the present.

Legal commercial whaling? No Deal.


- Sharon White, President