3News » Home
Full Story

Labour backs govt's stance on whaling proposal

6 comments | Post Comment email Email printer friendly Print    Text Size:
aA
aA
aA
Foreign Minister Murray McCully said the proposals fell "very seriously short" of being the basis for a negotiated settlement and were a step backwards. (file pic)

Foreign Minister Murray McCully said the proposals fell "very seriously short" of being the basis for a negotiated settlement and were a step backwards. (file pic)

Sat, 24 Apr 2010 9:30a.m.

Labour is backing the Government's rejection of the latest proposals to curtail whaling but wants to know more about what it intends doing to end it in the Southern Ocean.

The International Whaling Commission (IWC), which has been struggling to come up with a compromise plan, yesterday released proposals which would allow Japan, Norway and Iceland to continue commercial whaling for another decade, despite the global moratorium which is still in place.

It was claimed that by setting lower catch limits which were lower than the self-imposed quotas of the three whaling nations, between 4000 and 18,000 whales could be saved over the next 10 years.

There would be rigorous monitoring of whaling, and no other countries in the 88-nation commission would be allowed to start whaling during the 10-year plan.

The environmentally delicate Southern Ocean, which is central to New Zealand's concerns, would be designated a sanctuary although Japanese whalers would still be allowed to operate in the seas around Antarctica - and they would be able to kill a number of small fin whales.

The IWC will make a decision on the proposals at its next meeting in June.

Foreign Minister Murray McCully said the proposals fell "very seriously short" of being the basis for a negotiated settlement and were a step backwards.

"The catch limits proposed in the Southern Ocean are unrealistic," he said.

"The proposal to include fin whales in the Southern Ocean is inflammatory. New Zealanders will not accept this."

Mr McCully said he wasn't closing the door on a diplomatic solution and wanted to find out whether there was room for any significant movement that could lead to New Zealand's objective of ending whaling in the Southern Ocean.

He described the alternatives as "pretty awful" and said if the negotiating process broke down the IWC could effectively cease functioning.

Then there would be not controls on whaling at all in international waters.

Labour's foreign affairs spokesman, Chris Carter, welcomed the Government's position which he said was stronger than it had previously taken.

"Labour has steadfastly refused to entertain the idea of commercial whaling in our Southern Ocean," he said.

"We still have no idea what - if anything - this National government will do to stop Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary."

Mr McCully has not ruled out joining Australia in taking a case to the International Court of Justice if the diplomatic process fails, but he wants to keep trying for as long as he considered it is productive.

NZPA

 

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Comments [6]

RobertM
25 Apr 2010 2:46p.m.

The International Whaling commissions quotas are just an attempt to game the system and make the idea of quotas acceptable. Already labour has fallen into the trap. In reality the quota for the most taken type of whales would only be reduced by a l00 a year until 2015 and more Sea Shepherd harrasment of the whalers would probably be more effective in saving whales. The ideas of a quota for fin whales is purely tactical and will be withdrawn as a negotiating gesture. In reality Kiwi, Japan has to be stopped whaling and conducting its predatory Southern Ocean fishing. Just as Iran can not be allowed to develop nuclear power or the related protective shield of nuclear weapons. Irans military and regime simply are an unacceptable threat. Our navy is created for policing overfishing of tuna, patagonian toothfish and criminal whaling in the Southern Ocean.That is the whole reason for its design and its mere presence should be promoted as a deterrent. In reality the worlds food and fish stocks have to protected as a priority not Japans self and political interests.

Kiwi
24 Apr 2010 11:10p.m.

No Ickle, I didn't suggest you were a warmonger. I simply pointed out that YOUR suggestion sending in warships was not only impractical but nigh impossible. The same with economic sanctions, no country is going to risk Japanese retaliation against their economy. The same with tariffs on goods and services, not only are they usually subject to treaties but Japan would simply slap the same on us. Consumer boycotts never work because your average consumer just doesn't care, unless it's seriously hitting him in the pocket. As I said on the other post, trying to get the UN to do something is next to impossible. Nato isn't going to do anything over whaling as its a military organisation and doesn't interfere in economic matters. Not to mention if they expelled Norway Russia would jump in like a shot with its 'support' to improve its northern flank. Nato won't even risk that happening. Sweden's a neutral country, neither it nor Japan are members of Nato. The idea that anything can be done to stop Japan, or any other nation whaling is a pipe dream nothing more. You might as well try to persuade Iran to stop trying to develop nuclear weapons or the middle east from making peace with Israel. It ain't gonna happen.

IckleBickle
24 Apr 2010 8:46p.m.

Ah, I was wrong.. Lightseed/Alien was the first moron to respond lol.

I did justify it later by stating that there are many other things that can be done that dont require bending over (your favourtie past time) Alien.. oops lightseed.

Lightseed
24 Apr 2010 4:08p.m.

so Ickle your solution is to start a war? Wow that is so not intelligent isn't it. Because to sink their boats would lead to them fighting back. Thank goodness we have politicians around the world who have the intelligence to find a solution, be it through negotiation or legal action and not people who come up with moronic ideas like sinking their ships. A comprise me to reduce then end whaling is a far better option than a ban that sees record whaling numbers most years. You cannot apply sanctions to a country who has broken no laws, and Japan hasn't, they have used a legal loop hole. I suggest you educate yourself on the topic instead of acting out of emotion.

IckleBickle
24 Apr 2010 3:47p.m.

LOL, before Kiwi tries to state that I am just a warmonger..

Political sanctions, expulsion from organisations such as Nato, or the UN.
Economic sanctions.
Consumer boycotts
Increased tarriffs on goods and services.

Theres more than one solution.

Bending over with a targett painted on your backside is just not a solution at all.

Norway and Iceland would obviously fold before japan.. but would japan continue to whale if it had no support?.

IckleBickle
24 Apr 2010 11:47a.m.

Bend over politics as practiced by Murray McCully.

The International community doesnt want pansy arsed politicians that will bend over for a free trade agreement or other concessions.

The people of the world want an end to whaling, not a compromised solution that sees the public shafted in favour of whatever deal McCully thinks he can get from his bend over buddies in a backroom somewhere.

We dont want a negotiated compromise.

We want politicans that arent businessmen, politicians with a little moral fibre and some backbone.

McCully is a spineless fool, what can the world do? we dont have to bend over and take what Japan Norway and Iceland want.. they are a small minority and even in their own countries popular opinion is against whaling.

Solution, sink any and all whaling ships that enter the pacific.

When did politicians become such pansies?, ah thats right.. when businessmen took control of both major political parties.

I have never seen a political party try to be so Politically correct in such a long time.
Are they trying to be politically correct within New Zealand? no they tell the people of New Zealand that political correctness is outdated and has gone too far.


But never have a I seen a political party drop its pants and bend over so quickly on issues that are so important to the majority of New Zealanders.

I am not a greenie, but I am sick of Nationals double standards... if political correctness is outdated and has gone too far Mr Key... why are you letting Mr McCully drop his pants and bend over for Japan, Norway and Iceland?.

We dont want a compromise... we want an end... a compromise is the ultimate form of political correctness.

Or are bend over politics all National knows how to practice?.

Post a comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide here
Name:
Email: (Won't be published)
Comment:



3News Video 3News Audio