Shame on Labour spokesperson Chris Carter and partisan blog The Standard for using anti-whaling diplomacy for short-term political gain
Never has the right-wing sobriquet “The Stranded” seemed more appropriate.
I am truly loathe to diss a friendly fellow blog, and I apologise for it already. But they asked for it. It stems from this hysterical politicisation of New Zealand’s IWC negotiating stance, here and here, by The Standard blogger Eddie, which even one of their own readers characterised as “partisan hackery”. “I’m not sure what I think of this [wrote Neil] but using it as an excuse for more partisan hackery is tedious”. That didn’t stop Labour spokesperson Chris Carter wading in:
“It is now clear that this National-Act Government simply doesn’t care about marine mammal conservation or other conservation issues,” Mr Carter has said.
“This is the same Government that is prepared to mine our national parks, as well as support the resumption of commercial whaling.”
As if two posts weren’t enough, Eddie followed it up with a third, trying to get the Greens to rise to the bait. I logged on dreading the sort of rote response we had heard previously from the Greens, in defence of the Ady Gil. I take it from their silence today that there is internal dissent which, again, shows how much smarter they are sometimes than the Labour Party. These aren’t easy issues, nor are they issues to exploit politically. Anyone who thinks so completely fails to appreciate the intricacy of the diplomatic task before the IWC, and the size of the stakes.
Everyone, including, for the record, the government, has the objective here of killing the fewest whales, preferably none, and achieving that objective with utmost urgency:
Mr McCully said the New Zealand Government wanted whaling in the Southern Ocean eliminated and he thought the best way of getting substantial reductions was through the diplomatic process.
The issue is what means to adopt to that end. I wrote about the throes of the IWC here on Pundit, nearly a year ago, last May. The issues are the same now as I canvassed then. It incenses me to see this fraught issue jeopardised, for the worst possible reason: short-term political self interest.
Yes, there has been a change in New Zealand's policy since last May; and yes, this might be marshalled by The Standard as further evidence (if they were interested in evidence) in support of their position. When Geoffrey Palmer spoke to Pundit then, it was me putting to him the arguments in favour of cautious sanction of some whaling, and him setting out a list of reasons why not:
I put it to him that New Zealand is trying to defend the legally indefensible—hypocritically accusing the Japanese of intractability, blaming them for inability to reach consensus when fault can be found on both sides. Given what’s at stake, mightn’t the cautious sanction of some whaling, where sustainable, pour some oil (pardon the pun) and smooth the way long term?
Yes, he agreed, New Zealand’s position is indefensible on sustainability grounds for some types of whales. But … [and he went on, to list six counter-arguments].
I found aspects of this unconvincing then, and I do still. So of course, I’m bound to have some sympathy for the revised position as it emerged today, as best I can understand it, from the scanty time I was able to give it. [I did check the IWC website; the minutes of the Florida intersessional meeting seem not yet to be posted.] These are some key points, as I run to catch my train:
- “Permits” for scientific whaling are issued at the sole discretion of the government wishing to use them, numbers have dramatically increased, and everyone knows it is a farce. It would be progress to bring that under control by the IWC, which is going to take a quid pro quo.
- The IWC itself recognises that there are some non-threatened species, such as the little minkes; whaling them might be abhorrent, but it is not a conservation issue.
- What is proposed would bring the IWC back on a sounder footing, closer to its original mandate.
- The Japanese have much right on their side, perhaps not as regards whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, but more generally in their beef with the IWC, which might be a risky factor in legal proceedings risky.
- Whales don’t care what whaling is called -- “commercial” or “scientific”. The question is how many, and the fewer the better.
Even more offensive than Eddie’s posts was colleague Marty G’s comments, excoriating anyone who might disagree on the comments thread, evidently mistaking ad hominem for wit: “I don’t give a crap about Palmer … have you suffered a head injury? … follow the link in the post, genius” … and so on. I have no idea who “Neil” might be, but I am grateful to him for his, presumably independent, views:
“Palmer has been in this role for a while and these negotiations have been going on for a while. It’s not like Key came up with this idea. I’m not sure what I think of this but using it as an excuse for more partisan hackery is tedious. ... Is this about whales or is this about another flimsy pretext to call political opponents liars.”
“I’d say that Palmer has done far more to advance anti-whaling than any leftie activist and I really doubt he’d be implementing a plan that he personally objected to on the orders of a politician – which is what you’re implying.”
“Since the lead negotiator has been in the role since 2002 and is a person of known integrity then I’d say his views might well be worth paying attention to. … But then calling Key a liar and Palmer a puppet is much easier and much more emotionally reassuring it seems.”
“Palmer was appointed by Labour, he’s not one to be told what to say, he doesn’t need the money. If he disagreed with what the SWG were recommending he could easily walk away. I really really doubt he’s mouthing Key’s words against his will.”
Using dead whales as pawns in a political game is no less sickening than their original butchery. Carter says the Labour Party stands for their conservation. What I take from the past two day's performance is that it stands for ill advised unnuanced politicking, over substantive hard policy choices.
Comments (29)
Now isn't really the time for knee jerk behaviour in respect of Japanese whaling. The last election was a watershed in Japanese political history, and the schlerified political bonds that characterised the old regime are now at least temporarily somewhat fluid.
Whaling is a somewhat anomalous and by no means enormously profitable enterprise for Japan, and constructive engagement with the new government might find some middle ground - but old school confrontation simply begs for an endorsement of the status quo.
Would it also be out of order to make this somewhat partisan observation. Labour is still figuratively living off the capital of the anti-nuclear legislation, so you think they're have very strong memories of the sabre rattling from Foggy Bottom going down in New Zealand like the proverbial bucket of cold sick. I remember members of my own family who might have opposed the anti-nuke legislation, but they'd be damned if Ronnie Raygun was going to dictate to us who to let into our own damn ports.
As Stuart puts it, "constructive engagement" may be hellishly frustrating and painfully slow, but it is more likely to get results than posturing.
Probably not out of order! But it might help if both you guys clarified who you're accusing of, variously, "knee jerk behaviour", "posturing", and confrontation (as opposed to constructive engagement).
I assume you're referring to either the IWC stance (commercial whaling ban, which effectively hi-jacked that body's original mandate), and/or New Zealand's anti-whaling policy, and/or Labour's stringent defence of that policy.
I probably agree with you. The annual summer whaling in the Southern Ocean sanctuary, for example, strikes me as a pretty clear "two fingers up" to the IWC (which established the sanctuary), and particularly key whaling opponents NZ and Australia (since its their territory) - far more of a political statement each year, than driven by any commercial imperative.
However, I'd also suggest that both the IWC and Palmer on behalf of NZ recognised the downstream problems inherent in their position some time ago, and have spent the best part of the last several years trying to fix this. The latest instalment represents only a fraction of the complex work involved. If that's not "constructive engagement" and a move away from "old school confrontation", I don't know what is.
Claire:
Sorry, I meant it would be nice if Labour and The Standard actually acknowledge the practical complexities involved (which you laid out rather nicely) instead of taking the cheap partisan shots for domestic consumption.
I've also got to agree with Neil that it beggars belief that Geoffrey Palmer is either a sycophant of the incumbent government (he's doing a terrible job at the Law Commission if that's the case) or some Manchurian candidate for commercial whaling interests. I don't always agree with the man, but he's nobody's fool.
In a perfect world Tokyo and Oslo (and every other disagreeable government out there) would just realise that New Zealand is the source of all wisdom and righteousness. In that world, Viggo Mortensen would also agree to be my exclusive love slave. Reality is a pain in the arse but it is all we've got.
"In that world, Viggo Mortensen would also agree to be my exclusive love slave."
You may wish to avoid the upcoming adaptation of Cormack McCarthy's The Road, in that case. He doesn't look at his best ...
Sorry, I meant it would be nice if Labour and The Standard actually acknowledge the practical complexities involved (which you laid out rather nicely) instead of taking the cheap partisan shots for domestic consumption ...
Yes. And, might I add, Sea Shepherd / Ady Gil.
I meant to elaborate on that a smidgin in the post, but I was very pushed for time; so in hindsight, my comments about "rote response" from the Greens are a bit opaque (and I'm sorry for the typo, too ...).
What I meant was this: we kept getting Russel Norman looking grave, and intoning about how the National government doesn't grasp the true feeling of NZers on this important issue. I'm sure he's correct, as regards NZers love for whales, and aversion to seeing them butchered. However, what he and Sea Shepherd seem not to grasp is that the government, at this crucial time in the talks, simply cannot come out endorsing that kind of confrontational exploitative activism - and criminal behaviour, too, to a degree they'd struggle to endorse at any time. And actually, I doubt Sea Shepherd mind all that much. It makes the martyrdom so much more impressive.
My knee jerks are the Sea Shepherd protests and any of the routine 'talking at' sound bites that might have been appropriate under the former Japanese administration, but don't play well with the new folk.
I wonder too, if the protesters quite understand how non-violent protest can be made to work - it seems more gung ho than Gandhi atm.
I've been having another look at The Standard (which hasn't been one of my regular haunts, to be fair), and I find myself disappointed all over again really, but for quite different reasons.
I reckon they've let themselves down, just as much as the rest of us and the whales, with those posts, because clearly, they're capable of so much better.
Latest: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/whaling-proposal-not-realism-its-a-sell-out/. More of the same, I’m afraid.
Some poor bloke, eager to link back here – he linked to Pundit from two different places on The Standard this morning – gets disparaged for not having any cogent argument of his own. So, on his behalf, let me try to lay out a cogent argument for Eddie, although I am really beginning to think he wouldn’t recognise one if he fell over it on Lambton Quay.
First, he invites us to: “Look at the draft agreement. Do you see any reductions in quota numbers? No. The big quotas (the Southern Ocean) don’t even have numbers but those that do have numbers start in 2011 at 410 a year and end in 2020 at 410.”
Okay. First, it’s a “Draft – not agreed”. I know this because it has “Draft – not agreed” literally written all over it. It was the document to bring to the meeting, not the end result. The negotiation, even post-meeting, are far from finished.
Second, the fact that there were no reductions tabled over the next decade is a red herring, if you’ll pardon the expression. What matters is the quota set relative to numbers actually being killed now, taking into account also the projected trend. There is a rising trend: 300 in 1990, 500 in 1995, 1000 in 2000, 2000 in 2005, 3000 in 2010.
John Armstrong quoted some of those numbers. Maybe John Armstrong is another liar. Here is Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Is he a liar, too?
As Eddie rightly points out, the draft can’t be relied upon to promise reductions. This is contingent on the many missing numbers. However, for the same reason, it can’t be used for his purposes either.
Back to Eddie: “No-one has explained why Japan would suddenly agree to reduce, and eventually end, its whaling anyway.”
We did, actually, here, yesterday. I’d class it as more of a theory, than an explanation, but not a wholly stupid one. Japan is busy at the moment making a political point, at the expense of the whales. They are as much driven by that sheer bloody-mindedness as anything else.
The reality is that the ban on commercial whaling saw the number of whales killed each year drop from over 10,000 to 2,000 last year. Sure, the number of whales killed under the ‘scientific’ loophole has increased. But what’s our reaction to people breaking the rules? Change the rules to permit them? Sounds like National’s tax policy.
Nice. Except … the point about scientific whaling is that there are no rules. Nothing to stop 10,000-plus whales being scientifically whaled, if the Japanese want, and if there are that many left to find. Also, see further above, on the numbers and the trend.
“[Kevin Rudd's] tough talk should be seen for what it really is – utter expedience, making New Zealand’s stance look principled in comparison.” [writes John Armstrong]
Um. Fact check [writes Eddie]. Taking Japan to court over whaling was a campaign promise by Labor. If they can be criticised for anything, it’s failing to act earlier.
Sadly for Eddie, this fact looming large in his mind is no rebuttal at all to the point about Kevin Rudd.
Let’s get real here. If re-introducing commercial whaling was the only workable option and it would lead to the eventual end to whaling, wouldn’t whaling and environmental advocacy groups be all for it? Of course they would. Yet the reaction from these groups has been universal and strident opposition.
Um. Fact check. Silence from the Greens, for three days now. I sympathise with their predicament, and endorse their approach. I don't mean to put people in the gun, but something is fishy here (pardon me, again), and one can only speculate about why they are preferring to prat on about 5th birthdays and missing shipping containers. They have Gareth Hughes, a fired up young Greenpeace activist, and Kennedy Graham, international lawyer and diplomat. Also, on Monday, WWF on National Radio defended New Zealand’s stance. So … not quite “universal”, then?
Key lied to us. He told us that he was going to end whaling. But the reality is that he has sold out New Zealand’s proud tradition of opposing whaling and, without mandate or consultation, turned us into a pro-whaling nation.
Um. Another fact check! Here’s Murray McCully:
"There is no mandate for the New Zealanders who are participating in the discussion to do any deal whatsoever. The only mandate they have is to see if they can find a diplomatic solution that the New Zealand Government and then the New Zealand people can consider," he told Radio New Zealand this morning. "If there is a suggestion of a diplomatic solution we will obviously tell New Zealanders what's on the table and seek their views … ”
Back to the bloke with the links. “I see Pundit having a go at you Eddie [he writes]. Pundit makes more [sic] sence”.
“Pundit is a multi-author blog with authors of widely varying opinions [responds a site editor]. What you meant to say was that Claire Browning wrote a post on it.”
Indeed. Precision is good.
The Standard, too, is a multi-author blog with authors of, apparently, widely varying opinions. I was a “real gem” according to one of them a couple of weeks ago, now I’m not quite a real "Pundit".
Surely, the truth is not that one’s value to The Standard is solely determined by how well the comment suits the meme?
This afternoon Chris Carter launched an online "save the whales" petition.
It says the Labour Party opposes whaling, and this is its proposition: "I oppose all moves to restart commercial whaling".
I look forward to the rival petition, or Facebook page, pointing out that the New Zealand government opposes whaling, too, and putting this alternative proposition: "I support all moves to reduce the number of whales killed".
I'm certainly glad Chris Carter said what he said. I don't agree it is only for short term gain and I don't see his comments as clinically and as assumtively cynical as you seem to. There is a huge number of people who think he could have been even more expressive.
Key fancies himself as a modern negotiator and too often this attitude leads to more procrastination or serves as an excuse not to address the hard edge of a situation.
The aggressive and blunt tactics and actions of the protesters are why the Japanese self-serving slaughter factories have come to our attention. They (the Japanese) have been doing this for decades in our back yard.
Their cheque-book tactics for support votes at the IWC forum are obvious.
Negotiating with the Japanese is as futile as negotiating with a corporate to adopt genuine social responsibilty as a primary consideration when making decisions concerning profits.
Oh! And back to the short term political gain reference - Bob Jones once said- 'What's wrong with a quick buck?'.
Bruno,
Thanks for your views.
The thing is though, it's Carter, in this instance, failing to address the hard edge of the situation. I could write a whole other post about this, and am beginning to think maybe I need to, but here's a few quick-fire points:
(Not quite so quick-fire after all ...)
HI Claire
It was the complete disregard for Palmer which initially struck me. I thought it very unlikely that he had suddenly become the mouth piece for Key, rather that his current position had been arrived at over a period of time.
Someone of his stature and experience was worth listening to at least.
Good luck with that OIA request, Labour have been less than honest here.
Neil, I take it you're the gentleman whose words I snitched, above - thanks for that.
Woooow – Please stop expressing opinions as statements that imply fact.
In pt 2 you say it is incredibly counter-productive - that’s your point of view or opinion.
I don’t think it is counter productive. And I don’t think it spurs them on as much as you imply. If it does it points to the insincerity of the Japanese motive. But to suggest the protesters are complicit … I can’t buy that one. The angry or calculated reaction of a Japanese whaler to take vengeance by killing more whales? Is that what you are saying? If it is true then it is even more proof of the mindset we are going to be negotiating with.
This negotiation ‘thing’ is another modern farce.
It will - after the 10 year hour glass gets turned over to begin another 10 years of BS talk with various idiotic egos believing they are going to come to an agreement the Japanese - come to another non-conclusive conclusion the Japanese will find their way around.
Making the southern ocean a sanctuary and aggressively marching to that beat is what will stop the Japanese, or any other nation, killing whales in these parts.
As for the muslim, hindu, abattoirs, pork, beef reference – come on – please don’t use ‘WE ’when you get off the track and try to make dubious analogies. (But come to think of it I would welcome the attack on the abattoirs personally. That makes you complicit I think?)
You have bee under your bonnet about Chris Carter aye!!???
As for the media's snappy edit of a conversation with Chris Carter - you must be able to see through all that stuf. More often than not we see what the TV wants us to see - the media has the same self-serving interest as any corporation or Japanese whaling boat. (as do most politicians)
I come back to the Key issue- He specifically told us he was going to end whaling. Now he's going to negotiate. What does that mean???!!! Absolutely nothing - it just avoids and delays the issue.
@ Bruno B
You need to pay more attention to the current political situation in Japan.
Claire is spot on about Carter:
Sunday, 8 April 2007, 3:41 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Government
A major international symposium will take place in New York this week to explore ways of resolving the current impasse on whale conservation and management, Conservation Minister Chris Carter said today.
"The purpose of this symposium is to analyse options for the conservation of whales, and ideas which might resolve the current impasse at the International Whaling Commission over scientific whaling and other issues," Mr Carter said.
"While this is not a government or official meeting, New Zealand will nevertheless study any outcomes with care. The more international discussion there is about ways to move the whaling issue forward, the better.
"I am delighted Sir Geoffrey, New Zealand's Whaling Commissioner, has agreed to chair this symposium in his personal capacity. Sir Geoffrey is well qualified for the task he is a laureate of the United Nations 'Global 500 Role of Honour' for his work on environmental issues," Mr Carter said.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0704/S00151.htm
Making the southern ocean a sanctuary and aggressively marching to that beat is what will stop the Japanese, or any other nation, killing whales in these parts.
You think? I mean, it does rather have the ring of a Tui ad about it. IWC: saving whales in the Southern Ocean since 1994.
Looks like Palmer has been advocating this sort of solution since 2006:
http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/70653/sea-shepherd-prosecute-japan-over-whalin
(Also note that Carter labelled Sea Shepherd "irresponsible" for taking direct action).
This call for 'limited' commercial whaling is the thin end of the wedge. Japan is slowly buying votes on the International Whaling Commission. If we allow this now, Japan's aid money will drive the wedge home and we'll be back to full commercial whaling in a decade or two.
We need to stop this now! Japan has a new government ...after decades of single party rule. Now is not the time to backslide, but to end all scinetific and commercial whaling once and for all, IMHO
Claire, you might be interested to know I put the question of whether Labour had themselves engaged in this sort of negotiation to Chris Carter over at Redalert.
No reply.
Little wonder they don't wont to address what Palmer is saying.
I find it very disappointing that Labour have chosen to behave like this on this issues. Judging by the polls it isn't really working either.
Good arguments, Rick. They were certainly good enough last May, for the purposes of fobbing off a random blogger!
Since then, the strategy has changed. If you're The Standard, you blame this on Key; however, the likelihood I would say is that all other avenues have been explored, and expert advice given that they have small or no prospect of success. Time and the OIA will tell, I guess.
The problem I have with your line of argument is that it doesn't tell us what to do instead. It assumes the status quo is a durable option. It isn't (although again here, I am assuming the status quo wouldn't have been lightly dismissed).
Neil, my guess - you won't get that reply, but I hope to be able to provide one on Mr Carter's behalf, in a week or few, when MFAT delivers the OIA goods.
Hi again
Stuart, I pay much attention to Japanese politics, art and culture and perhaps one of the reasons I speak/write/express myself as above is that. I agree with Leckinger so far as that it is no time to relax or sit back and see if.
Bruno
PS
Congratulations Claire - you have aroused over 23 responses - a record possibly?
I appreciate the distinction Claire, but I don't think that the staus quo is significantly different. As others have pointed out, Palmer has held this position for years, it is not new.
The only parts of the game that have changed are the Japanese government, a fickle but generally waning market of whale in Japan and the fact that more and more votes on the IWC are being purchased by generous (and needed) Japanese development/ODA money.
If ever there was a time not to waver but to keep the pressure on, it is now. At the risk of sounding like George W, we need to stay the course! (shuddering at that image)
Good for you Bruno - but if you want to get anywhere with the Japanese, strong arm tactics are not likely to be productive.
The Japanese whaling lobby had firm links to the old single party system - but it's relationship is less clear with the new folk. The whaling lobby - much like the NZ fishing industry, enjoys sporadic political but quite limited public support.
If, by ill-considered foreign antagonism the whalers can market themselves to the new administration and the public as 'the good guys', you will indeed need to step up your campaign. But since the current government would lose face by backing down, that is unlikely to be especially successful.
One might hope NZ had learned something since the days of Muldoon. But the evidence seems to be to the contrary...
The Greens' position is now here and here - very much business as usual.
Reports of intelligence may have been greatly exaggerated.
Actually, no - let me soften that. It's not clear at all what they were thinking about all week; and since they did have all week to think about it, one might expect the position as it eventually emerged to be accurate.
So: Japan has not shown that it "cannot be trusted to honour agreements on whaling", because there has not been an "agreement" since the moratorium was imposed. It was an imposed solution, by conservation-minded nations who gained the IWC majority. And again, the government is charged with "reversing" New Zealand's position. And there's recourse, again, to a kind of "floodgates" argument, whereas the truth as far as anyone can tell is that whaling is not commercially viable. Why would it suddenly become so?
But first and foremost, what I was objecting to in the post was the highly politicised and personalised nature of Labour's attack. The Greens tread more cautiously (with the benefit of hindsight, I imagine). And I agree with them that there is lots of room for doubt and debate about the so-called "Palmer position": is it feasible, and is it right. And we ought to have that debate.
However, right now, I wonder if Palmer himself even knows what the position is. He will know the negotiating position, of course, and the present status of the talks, but not the end result. I don't know if I want to defend the position, without knowing what it is; what irritates me is rejecting it out of hand, for no better reason than it acknowledges that some whales would continue to be killed.
Trying to debate the merits of any proposed solution, without knowing (a) the shape of it, and (b) the prior sequence of events and advice, is boxing at shadows. So write all the op eds you like, Metiria, and I will write some posts no doubt, and we'll all muddle along in the usual scarily uninformed way ...
Claire I judge diplomatic action to long ago having failed over whaling. Geoff Palmer I see as essentially a foreign affairs company man-following the Governments and Tim Grossers line that foreign policy is trade and NZ must not punch above its line. Possibly the emphasis that has been put on a trade oriented foreign policy rather than one based on security or moral issues blinds us to the real importance of resource, global warming, environmental and terrorist issues. The obvious next step on the whaling issue is to give moral and actual support to Australia taking the case to International Court of Justice in the Hague. Palmer overlooks three critical things. If a case is put before the world court or court of the law of the sea in Hamburg that court will almost without doubt place an injunction ending all whaling scientific or otherwise for the several years the case is head. (see Don Rothwell ANU Prof official report to NZ & Aus Govts in 2005).Taking international court action will stop whaling for the moment. Secondly the whaling moratorium proposed by NZ is only a temporary one that will allow whaling after its ten year spell expires. Thirdly Australias claim of a 320km zone off Antarctica was recognised by the Australian high Court and the splitting of the Ady Gill and whaling in the whale sanctuary is illegal under Australian Law. Surely New Zealands foreign policy is to support Australia becasue this is part of the broader issue of ocean sustainability of marine wildlife.
"Australias claim of a 320km zone off Antarctica was recognised by the Australian high Court..."
Jeepers, if it's that easy, we should get the NZ High Court to recognise a claim by NZ for the whole of Antarctica!
But seriously, surely the "broader issue of ocean sustainability of marine wildlife" is about getting nations like Japan to come under an international agreement to limit the size of their catch, and also set limits on which species can be caught. Isn't this what Palmer is trying to do? And if an international agreement for international waters can be made for whales, the logic al progression is to aim for similar agreements for other species such as tuna.
I have yet to see an adequate justification for a total ban on whaling, other than the "we love whales" approach. For a meat-eating, fishing nation, we sure are hypocrites.
Post new comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.