US Supreme Court rejects Sea Shepherd request to lift whaling injunction

US Supreme Court rejects Sea Shepherd request to lift whaling injunction

The US Supreme Court has rejected a plea from environmental activist group Sea Shepherd that asked to have an injunction from Japan’s whaling industry lifted, thus ending current restrictions on the group’s movement. A previous ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ordered Sea Shepherd, led by the infamous Paul Watson, to stay at least 500 meters away from Japan’s ship while they carry out their yearly hunt in the Southern Ocean.

The request to have the injunction lifted was denied by Justice Anthony Kennedy, although he did not provide an explanation for his decision. As Sea Shepherd has continued to try impeding the activities of Japan’s whalers in recent weeks, including locating the fleet’s refueling ship and attempting to block access, the Japanese industry filed a motion in the US this week that accused the activists of violating the order not to approach. Japan’s Institute for Cetacean Research, it’s government-backed whaling organization, asked that Sea Shepherd be found in contempt of court after the Brigitte Bardot ship approached a whaling vessel on January 29th. Such a ruling from the US court could result in serious legal penalties.

Sea Shepherd is attempting to prove that it is not subject to the US court order, as this year’s campaign in being run by the group’s Australian organization and are sailing under Australian flags. While the groups is based in the state of Oregon, it argues that a US court has no jurisdiction over its actions that take place on the other side of the globe. Sea Shepherd is still claiming early success this year by pointing out that not a single whale has been killed at this point. The injunction from the Ninth Circuit court of appeals was first issued on December 17th, based on concerns for the safety of both sides while operating at sea after past instances of Sea Shepherd’s extremism, including ramming Japanese vessels with their own ships.

[via Sky News]
Share Button
DISCUSS IT
Comment Policy : Our comments section is open and welcome to anyone who wishes to participate in discussion or share their point of view, regardless of what it may be. In order to limit spam and those who wish to impede meaningful conversation, we are now requiring users to log in with an account or verify their email address. However, the following behavior will result in your comment being deleted or, if continued, permanent removal from conversations: posting under multiple names, making hateful/racist comments, or making no valuable contribution by posting the same thing repeatedly.
  • Ryohei Uchida

    How funny that they actually tried to get the injunction lifted. “Please, US Supreme Court, let us go back to physically attacking the Japanese. It’s only acid…”. Poor dears.

    How desperate they have become. This injunction is a devastating stranglehold on Sea Shepherd. While in years past they have solicited million of dollars in donations under the pretense of “shutting down Japanese whaling”, now they are literally unable to do it. They can’t even hold up signs like Greenpeace used to do, because they wouldn’t even be visible from the court-mandated distance of 500 yards. Sea Shepherd is utterly impotent and totally useless.

    For now, it seems they’re contenting themselves with sailing around in circles in the Southern Ocean and pretending to be having an effect upon a whaling operation they are yet to encounter this season. They make ridiculous claims like “the Japanese haven’t yet killed a whale”, but no one believes that, not even their most brainwashed and deluded followers.

    With no violence, there is no TV show. With no TV show, the money will dry up. With no money, there are no boats, no expensive toys, and more importantly – no money to fund the ever growing number of legal disputes and prosecutions they find themselves in. The victory over Sea Shepherd was achieved by cutting off their money supply and negating their profits.

    Sea Shepherd is finished. The law has prevailed and along with it the whaling that it permits.

    Now, about those Interpol Red Notices…

    • Sun Wu

      thanks Ryohei Uchida,
      not much more to say…funny aswell that they claim having shut down whaling early for years with whalers supposed not having caught their quota…
      …but Japanese warehouse are still full with whalemeat given away for free simply to get rid of it.
      I strongly believe without Watson’s cultural desater TV Japan would have stopped whaling a while ago.
      Red notice…maybe Watson could join Assange – does Ecuador have an embassey in NZ or Australia?

    • BNB

      Ah, except that Sea Shepherd is currently on the slipway of the factory ship, blocking the Yushin Maru from transferring a whale. Seems they are perfectly able to continue stopping the Japanese slaughter.

      As an American, I’m insulted that our court feels it owns the world. This is an Australian campaign, Australian and Dutch flagged boats. At what point do we believe a US court has jurisdiction over Australian and Dutch boats in an Australian territory?

      The Sea Shepherds are currently stopping the Japanese with force and will continue to do so. The court ruling is a joke.

      • ddpalmer

        As an American I am insulted that you post such rubbish.
        The US Court doesn’t feel they own the world (just another morsel the SSCS feeds their sheeple). They know that they have jurisdiction over US organizations and the assets of those organizations. The SSCS HQ’s (a US organization) claims ownership of the vessels every year when they file their Form 990 with the IRS. Thus the organization and the vessels are under US jurisdiction.
        Again, stopping the transfer of a dead whale will not prevent the killing of more whales. And that “joke” will come back to take a big bite out of the SSCS.
        Plus if it is a “joke” why did they spend the time and money to attempt to get it overturned? Was it maybe just another PR opportunity to suck more donations from their sheeple?

        • BNB

          Just because a US organization owns the ship, does not give the United States government ownership of this ship nor jurisdiction over what this ship does while under the FLAG of another country on the other side of the planet. Why do you think the United States government should be able to tell you what to do with your property when you are not anywhere near the United States? The ships are flagged in the Netherlands and Australia, have non-American captains and a campaign being run by an Australian organization. People like you vote, and it scares me.

          As for stopping the transfer of whales. This tactic has proven incredibly successful. Maybe you don’t pay much attention, but the Japanese end their seasons early because they are unable to transfer whales, and thus, stop killing them.

          • ddpalmer

            Yes actually it does give the US jurisdiction, no matter what the flag or where in the world it is. That is why intelligent us organizations establish overseas affiliates and have them claim the assets. But this is not what the SSCS did and now they are paying the price.
            You obviously read the other article, or at least commented there. Let me quote “Sea Shepherd’s fear is that the Yushin Maru No 2 will move on to kill more whales if it is able to transfer its catch.” So the SSCS is afraid there actions wont stop the killing of more whales.
            And I realize people voting who can actually think and live in reality can scare someone like you who believes they know whats best for everyone. But such is life.

          • OpenMinded

            Then why did the us government claim they had no jurisdiction in all the cruise ship cases? I guess they are lying about it.

          • ddpalmer

            I assume becaue they didn’t have jurisdiction. Since you don’t mention any specific case I can’t begin to even try and look at the facts. But most if not all cruise ship companies have subsidiaries based in foriegn countries who actually own the ships.

        • OpenMinded

          Just like all the cruise ships owned by concerns in the US . They are flagged by other countries and therefore aren’t subject to US law. That was one of the complaints about the latest Carnival cruise lines problem. Can’t have it both ways can you?

          • ddpalmer

            Exactly what cases are you gibbering about? Because most of the cruise ship companies have foriegn subsidiaries that are the owners of the ships. The US based part of the company just contracts with the foriegn part of the company. Unlike the SSCS where the US branch explicitly claims the ships as their property. Can you understand the difference?

            So I am not trying to have it both ways.

            And obviously the US courts and US lawyers, who probably know the laws better than you, seem to agree with what I have claimed.

            Tell you what. get yourself licensed as a lawyer in the US and then I will listen to your claims. But until then you are just another uniformed sheeple.

    • BNB

      By the way, Sea Shepherd has announced that Japanese whalers have killed a whale. The Japanese have tried 10+ times to transfer the whale and the Bob Barker is blocking their access.

      Your post is absolute rubbish.

      • ddpalmer

        But whether they are able to transfer it or not it is already dead. Thus Operation Zero Tolerance has not meet its goal.

        • BNB

          Operation Zero Tolerance had a goal that they openly admitted may not happen. And let’s be frank, the Japanese know what this goal was. They shot this whale KNOWING they would be unable to transfer it. Thus, they killed it just to be able to say Sea Shepherd didn’t succeed. Does that not bother you?

          • ddpalmer

            So now you KNOW what the Japanese are thinking. How amazing. Do you know tonights lottery numbers too?
            SSCS KNEW Japan would try and transfer whales and stopping them would be a violation of the injunction. Doesn’t that criminal behavior bother you?

  • Hayashi

    Nice Uchida, first on the post! I find your writing style inherently inflammatory, let’s see how many people take the bait.

  • Dale Lafayette

    So, if warehouses are so full that the whale meat is being given away for free, why have a hunt in the first place? Hunters don’t go out consistently if their freezers are full. Regardless of how you lean politically or nationally, this is a morbid act that really has no place in our current society. All you have to do is look around and see what the great oceans are becoming…desolate. the great reefs are dying and we (humans) are to blame because we haven’t respected them. Now, I’m not a earthy-crunchy person by any stretch of the imagination. I’m a firefighter/paramedic, but I can also see the end game in this tedious, imperialist conquest. It doesn’t end well for Japan.

    • ddpalmer

      Maybe because it is research?

      • Dale Lafayette

        Extinction in the name of research? Give me a break.

        • ddpalmer

          What extiction are you talking about? The Maui Dolphins around New Zealand? The Baiji in China? Or some other extinction threat that the SSCS seems to be ignoring.

        • http://www.facebook.com/gillian.easterwood Gillian Easterwood

          They caught a minke whale, marked “least concern” by the IUCN…

          • Think

            What’s the cost per kilo of meat? One thing for sure, it is a hugely inefficient and unnecessary food production process.

            If the ICR did equivalent non-lethal research it might be taken even a little serious. There is a great deal of non-lethal and even non-invasive research to be done. It does not and consequently it is derided the world over. Whatever you think of the issue, anyone with any intellectual integrity has to see the ICR as a toxic bunch of clowns.

            Sadly the fact remains the only “research” Japan is doing is research aimed at the supply of meat for human consumption.

            That is market research for industry, not scientific research.

            It might was in Japan where society consists of toothless cloned sheep afraid to speak out and willing to repeat whatever NHK and the Kishas tells them to think, but not in the rest of the world.

          • ddpalmer

            LOL.

            The Japanese do more non-lethal research on whales than any other country.

          • Truth

            OK … show us a comparison table.

            I ask you to back up your claims because you are making false statements to confuse or mislead people.

            Likewise, what matters most is the purpose to which the research is being done. The purpose of most of the Japanese research is to establish grounds to recommence commercial whaling.

            To that end, it does not matter whether the research is lethal or non-lethal … it is basically a hunter stalking its prey and not ‘science’ at all.

          • Think

            ddpalmer, I’ll answer both your recent comments here as the software is rather poor at organizing discussion threads.

            Everyone knows what the ICR’s purpose is. Its purpose is to support and promote the commercial exploitation of whale slaughter … only, euphemistically, they call it “management”, or even more ridiculously, “coexistence”.

            Only the ICR propagandists could dream up such a Orwellian idea that “coexistence” could mean ‘killing things’ … and this is one of the reasons why their propagandists are so pathetic and despicable.

            It might work in a Japanese kindergarden, no one else in the world believes it.

            No, a marine biologist carrying out pure scientific study would not be classed as having a vested interest in the same way as a corporate sponsor entity would.

            Again, your response suggests that you really don’t understand what science is.

          • Think

            If the purpose of that research is to re-start commercial whaling it defeats the purpose. It’s just a hunter talking its prey.

            I asked you back up your claims because you are making false and illogical statements.

            Show us a table and identify what the research is for. Not all research is scientific and in the ICR’s case is it primarily to support financial exploitation of whale slaughter.

          • ddpalmer

            Go read the ICR research plan. It will answer your question.

            And frankly you have to either be stupid or a troll to have not already read the plan before trying to argue about the research issue.

          • http://www.facebook.com/gillian.easterwood Gillian Easterwood

            I will wait for the Court in The Hague to decide whether what the Japanese are doing is research or not.

          • Think

            The International Court of Justice only hears contentious disputes between States. It has no jurisdiction to deal with applications from individuals, non-governmental organizations, corporations or any other private entity and only gives advisory opinions on legal matters, not scientific matters

            Neither Sea Shepherd nor the whales are a State.

            What on earth are you saying!?

            “I’ll only believe it is not science if some court which does not make judgement of science and does not hear private cases tells me so?”

            Incredible.

            What’s your motivation in all this Gillian?

          • http://www.facebook.com/gillian.easterwood Gillian Easterwood

            “On the 31 of May, 2010 Australia initiated proceedings against Japan before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, claiming that “Japan’s continued pursuit of a large scale program of whaling under the Second Phase of its Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic [...]” (you can read the full text on the portal of the ICJ) … In case AU can prove in a Court of Law that what the Japanese are doing is commercial whaling, then they’ll have a ground to deny them hunting whales in the Southern Ocean. In case, however, Japan can prove that it IS scientific research, then AU and SSCS will lose one of their fundamental arguments against whaling in the SO.

            My motivation? Let’s say they I became close with people who were a direct object of the lies and propaganda of Watson & Co, and that I believe that if whaling needs to stop, it should not be bacause some imperialist cult group is saying so, but the change should come from within.

          • Think

            “Guest”, are you also Gillian? I am sorry, I thought they referred to some case for/against Sea Shepherd, or that we on the conservation side should test the research at the ICJ.

            Which people are you speaking of precisely?

            Are we talking specifically about “lies”, or about the anti-animal exploitation and conservation aims?

          • http://www.facebook.com/gillian.easterwood Gillian Easterwood

            Yes. It is I. Deleting a post, doesn’t delete it, but turns the poster into “Guest” apparently…

            Anyway, I won’t read all your past posts again to see “which side” you’re on. Honnestly, I don’t care. I do not consider myself a pro-whaler, nor an anti-whaler. I do however believe that there are certain organizations (and, yes, SSCS is one of them) that are using the term “conservationism”, b

          • Think

            There is no humane way to kill a whale and, as the cetacean nation offer no threat to humanity, we should be no threat to it.

            I am sorry but we must accept now that the only existing way to kill whales are callous and barbarian. Stick to scavenging dead ones, as is tradition to coastal communities, and no one will complain. They may be grossed out but they might even admire such a policy if it saves killing other animals.

            There are many different tribes who consider many things to be “blessings” who don’t feel the need to slaughter them or cause them suffering.

            I’d say humanity has moved on from such superstition and the old beliefs in ‘noble savagery’ have no value is a world that faces the eco-cide we are driving towards.

            Ultimately they are ego-centric ideas, based on the tribes self-obsession at being special, rather than eco-centric … and putting others lives before it.

            We have no excuse to kill whales now. We should not. Unfortunately, we might need a Sea Shepherd-type organization to confront those whose only real interest is profit and could well be profiting from something else.

          • robs592919

            hope you end up dismembered.

      • BNB

        Come on, anyone reading this knows it’s not research – INCLUDING YOU.

        • ddpalmer

          Well having read some of their papers and having read the IWC Scientific Committees statements of how useful the data collected is – I KNOW it is research. Now people who refuse to read things that might burst their fantasy world may not see it but ignoring reality doesn’t make it go away.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-Steele/1590878567 Gary Steele

            Perhaps you could share some of your findings?

          • ddpalmer

            I just did. Can’t you read and understand English?

          • http://www.facebook.com/gillian.easterwood Gillian Easterwood

            Scientific documents to the IWC and other scientific meetings of intergovernmental organizations:
            http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPApaper.html

            Papers published in peer-reviewed journals:
            http://www.icrwhale.org/JARPA91paper.html

          • Think

            The International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee has repeatedly criticized the quality and purpose of the research by the ICR. It has also been criticized in detail by most of the leading marine mammal biologists in the world as “not being credible” and “failing to meet minimum standards for credible science”.

            In one case, their researchers even tried to fertilize cow and pig eggs with whale sperm! I mean, WTF!?!

            You might be able to confuse the kiddies or morons so-called “Gillian” but anyone with half a brain will see through the facade.

            The ICR don’t produce quality research, especially given the millions of dollars being thrown at them. The world knows it is just a facade for commercial whale slaughter. I think the world would actually respect them more if they gave up the facade as it certainly only reinforces negative stereotypes against Japan.

            Why does not it try just doing some non-lethal science for a couple of seasons and seeing how that improves public perception of both them and Japan?

            Stalinistic control of public opinion might work in Japan but not in the free thinking world.

          • http://www.facebook.com/gillian.easterwood Gillian Easterwood

            cf supra

          • Think

            A list of papers does not connote any specific value of those papers, especially when the organization offering them is an interested party.

            It’s like the tobacco industry offering papers to show what positive effects smoking has.

            The ICR’s research, and the paucity of its results given the $190m + cost of them, has been widely criticized internationally by prominent scientists and scientific bodies within the field of marine mammals.

            It’s just a facade for an industry for whose ability to financially profit from its activities looks increasingly unlikely and, hence, is aiming at surviving off government handouts.

            Had that money been put into local communities to establish modern, relevant and sustainable industries it would have benefited more individuals and the Japanese economy far more.

            There lies the greatest tragedy countless small coastal village communities are dying off and the government pours good money after bad for the sake of a battle of prides.

          • ddpalmer

            So are the peer reviewers for the papers interested parties? Are the journals that published them interested parties?

            And just how does a research conduct a study and write a research paper without being an interested party?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-Steele/1590878567 Gary Steele

        I beg you to tell me what we could possibly need to know so badly that we have to kill off arguably intelligent creatures who are harming no one just so the Japanese can have their whale meat. How many whales are still alive and what they might be eating? How to create whale ranches? What?

        • ddpalmer

          I can’t personally think of anything we NEED to know through lethal research. But there is lots of research on all sorts of topics that I don’t see a NEED for. It doesn’t make it any less research and I am smart enough and have a normal size ego so I know and admit that my opinions aren’t the only ones that matter. Just because I don’t think something is NEEDED doesn’t mean it isn’t NEEDED.

  • Wasted Money

    To me it almost feels like the US court is just waiting for the Shepherd to make a REALLY DUMB MOVE, and say like … really injure one or a couple of those fishermen…, and then jump the sheperds and rid of them. The Shepherd isnt exactly all kittens and rainbows and tbh i would see why the court cant really issue anything on their behalf. But it would also look bad to be against them 100% cause so many pple are shouting dolphin songs.

    The Sea is a dangerous place. To be playing around in those waters and ‘interrupting’ the fishermans jobs and calling such actions ‘nonlethal’ is quite naive or plain stupid. One day someone will get hurt real bad and the shepherd will end up having to pay for the responsibility. Its like tree lovers ending up injuring a lumberjack cause they messed around with him on his job. Theres no room for environmental love in the court of law. =/

    With all that money spend on people and making nifty anti waling ships, that guy could have fed some famine infested country elsewhere….or cancer research… Half of what watson is doing is just self pleasure as there are COUNTLESS other things that are in dire need of donations and hes off frolicking playing goody pirate.

  • Charlie Mankin CPE

    Sink em… Next time they come into Antarctic Preserve waters that 99% of the world Recognizes., SINK THE SHIPS! PERIOD…. Little People. Plain and Simple little people with not a moral bone. Killing Whats left of a once plentiful whale Population. Sink Em. The let the governments fight over it.

    • ddpalmer

      Sorry but 99% of the world doesn’t recognize any Antarctic Preserve.
      And Minke whales are at essentially the same population level as they were 50 years ago.
      Racist, plain and simple small minded racist.

  • Stever

    Haven’t the whalers (or the government that should be protecting those going about their lawful business under its flag), heard of self defence? Start shooting these criminal scum the next time they attempt damage to property or person and I suggest this problem will be resolved fairly quickly…. Zero tolerance indeed!

  • bob smith

    Apparently our protests interfere with Japan’s culture and traditions. The Japanese have a culture and tradition of torturing and murdering prisoners of war. Should we pretend that wasn’t a crime either?

  • Fasbender

    So who is going to donate to any future emergency fund for Japan in the case of another disaster such as the Tsunami ?…not me for sure

  • http://www.facebook.com/neko.mcgrover Brian Grover

    Japanese Blood Products

    There is a way to get Japan to stop the slaughter of dolphins and
    whales. The true power of Japan lies in the zaibatsu or industrial
    conglomerates. Traditionally government has acted more as handmaidens to such industrial powerhouses as Mitsubishi or Mitsui or Sumitomo than as
    true representatives of the people. Hence the moniker: Japan Inc. Like
    the zaibatsu, latter-day conglomerates such as Toyota, Sony, Panasonic,
    Honda, Toshiba, Fujitsu and so on are, at present, very vulnerable. On
    top of a fragile economy, Toyota’s product recall debacle has started to
    spill over into a consumer backlash against identifiably Japanese
    products in general. Indeed, Honda has just launched a feel-good
    campaign to distance itself from Toyota while ensuring the consumer
    connects notions of trust and reliability with Honda products.

    Obviously, the slaughter of cetaceans is of little economic value to
    Japan: at issue are a few hundred jobs and a few million dollars at
    most. Certainly, when compared to the trillions of dollars in trade that
    the Japanese high tech, consumer electronics and automotive sectors are
    worth, cetaceans are small fry. The objective then is to first of all
    threaten those key industries, and if that doesn’t work, carry out the
    threats. This can be achieved in a three-step approach.

    Step One

    Set up an ad hoc NGO specifically mandated to tackle the Japanese side
    of cetacean issues once and for all. Forget the Norwegians for the
    moment. They can be dealt with once Japan is out of the picture. This
    should be an umbrella organization working on behalf of all the
    disparate stakeholders and activists currently involved in these
    particular cetacean issues.

    Find an ad agency willing to work pro bono for prestige. The mere act of
    searching for such a media company will be enough to alert some
    Japanese companies of the looming threat outlined below in step two
    while tipping off their international competitors to the opportunities
    that are outlined below in step three.

    Step Two – The Carrot

    Approach the Japanese. Deals in Japan are best made in the back room.
    Make a high-level pitch to key government departments and the CEOs and
    VPs of the top 100 or so key industrial players in critical export
    industries. The gist of the pitch will be simple: unveil a subtle,
    sophisticated mockup campaign demonizing Japanese exports as “blood
    products”. Make it clear that the campaign and its derivatives need
    never see the light of day. Make it also clear that this mockup is only
    the beginning of a campaign of absolute terror designed to devastate
    Japanese industry unless the dolphin slaughter and the whale hunt are
    relegated to history. Indicate that Japan Inc. has a one-time only
    opportunity to reap a positive public relations dividend by acting
    within the next three months. Corporate Japan must lean on government
    and do it fast. If not, then Step Three will be deployed at great peril
    to Japanese industry.

    Face is an important consideration in Japan. Negotiating out of the
    limelight will avoid embarrassment that could lead to intractability.
    Japan is fed up with being bullied around by the international community
    and has bizarrely formulated its stance on cetacean issues in the
    mistaken belief that these are largely Japanese issues. The opportunity
    to pretend that it is joining the global community of its own volition,
    while gaining kudos that translate into trade, is a potentially powerful
    force.

    At the same time, the prospect of losing face, should the whole issue
    blow up in the public eye, can be a powerful motivator as well.
    Indecisive prevaricating has been the defining theme of modern Japan.
    The prospect of failing to act yet again, knowing that Japanese industry
    will be assailed on all sides, might be just enough to push the
    glacially slow political process forward.

    Step Three – The Stick

    If direct talks fail, approach competing American, European and
    especially Korean industrialists at an equally high level with a pitch
    demonstrating the strategic advantage of connecting Japan and its “blood
    products” — across the board — with cetacean slaughter. These
    corporations will be aware of the advantages of appearing
    cetacean-friendly in the minds of consumers but may not yet realize that
    these issues can be leveraged to deal a powerful body blow to their
    Japanese competitors.

    Expect a variety of responses. The timid will sit on the sidelines
    vacillating. Others will be reluctant to take Japan on directly but may
    be persuaded to make cetacean-friendly donations though their charitable
    portfolios. Some of these will even be willing to support a direct
    assault on Japanese “blood products” via an ad hoc third party. Finally
    there are those, motivated by desperate times, which will be inclined to
    take Japan Inc. on directly in order to appeal to those consumer
    segments which are motivated by Earth Issues. The payoff could be
    exceptional with direct sales and a significant slice of market share up
    for grabs.

    An assault can take many forms. Companies opting for direct action
    should consider mounting creative conventional media campaigns which
    tastefully denigrate competing Japanese products by linking them to
    cetacean slaughter and, at the same time, dissociating their own
    products from such environmentally heinous acts. Companies will realize
    that a huge opportunity exists, because of the controversial nature of
    such a campaign, to reap a massive dividend in free advertising as media
    throughout the world carry the first and best attack ads out of the
    gate.

    New Media should not be overlooked. There are immense benefits worth
    exploring in the realm of viral marketing as well: generating
    controversial content for YouTube, StumbleUpon and other social media,
    including even simple e-mail distribution. The costs are insignificant
    while the payoff potential is huge.

    Where companies have existing procurement contracts with Japanese
    companies an opportunity exists to serve notice that those arrangements
    will be reviewed in the light of Japan’s continuing intransigence on
    cetacean issues.

    Korea is a critical player in this strategy. Korean industry is very
    much in an ascendant phase much as industry in Japan is on the
    downswing. This is no coincidence. Korea has spent the last decades
    emulating Japanese success in precisely the sectors that Japan has been
    so successful in defining and dominating.

    There are no holds barred in Korean business practices. The objective is
    to make money as fast as possible. Asians in general aren’t
    particularly sensitive to the value of nebulous green issues in
    marketing but you can bet that the Madison Avenue handlers of companies
    like Samsung, Hyundai, KIA, LG, and other chaebol will recognize the
    opportunity once it is demonstrated to them.

    Self-interest can be harnessed to bring about social change. Global
    advertising agencies serve themselves best when serving their corporate
    masters whether warning their Japanese clients that something is afoot
    or elucidating an opportunity for competing clients elsewhere in the
    world. Japanese multinationals have a vested interest in seeing that
    Japanese political policies are aligned with those of the globe. Other
    multinationals can serve their own interests best by taking advantage of
    that misalignment. NGOs, for their part, serve their own interests by
    opening new avenues of funding and developing new approaches to
    effectiveness.

    Towards consensus-building, please pass this on to like-minded people throughout the world.