Original Area : ENVIRON  (FidoNet)
Original Date : Nov 27 '94, 05:07
Original From : Sam Mcclintock  (1:353/295)
Original To   : All
Original Subj : Norway and the Sea Schleppers

Norway and the Sea Schleppers

In reading the following, please keep in mind that the author is on the
protectionist side of the whaling issue, e.g. whales should not be
killed for any reason.  It is also the author's belief that subsistence
whaling by indigenous races should not be allowed as they still target
endangered species in their hunts.  The world has the resources to put
the natives on a different course, to help Norwegian whalers change
their vocation, and to make it unprofitable for the Japanese to
illegally import whale meat.

Probably the worst tragedy that can occur in the defense of our
environment is when those individuals and groups that try to protect our
environment mislead the public about their activities.  The only result
from such incidents is to further weaken the pro-environment stance on
all issues as anti-environment groups, businesses, and politicians use
this information for their own means. Such is the case involving the
whaling issues in Norway and surrounding the events leading up to the
collision of the Sea Shepherd vessel "Whales Forever" with the Norwegian
Coast Guard ship "Andenes" on July 6, 1994.

Greenpeace claimed that the boycott they organized on Norway has cost
Norway over $60 million dollars.  However, the list of references
provided by Greenpeace in Great Britain does not  substantiate this
"loss" to the Norwegian economy.  In some cases, their references are
out and out false, such as the claim that General Motors canceled 8.1
million crowns worth of contracts with Norwegian firms over the whaling
issue. General Motor's legal office specifically denied that the change
in contracts had anything to do with whaling.  Since the exports of
Norwegian products continues to grow and tourism has shown a consistent
rise, there is no justification for most of Greenpeace's other claims.
The real impacts of the boycott are much lower and have been absorbed by
Norway's growing economy.

Another article which surfurced during July asserted that crewmembers of
the Greenpeace ship Sirius had "freed" a harpooned whale.  This story
was carried by Animal People, who posed this as some sort of victory for
the whales.  This assessment is seriously  flawed on two points.  First,
the "art" of killing a whale has improved over the years, with a 50%
chance that the harpooned whale will die within seconds - almost all
never live beyond ten minutes.  This makes whaling substantially more
humane compared to past practices, but freeing a harpooned a potentially
cruel and inhumane act. Second, the Norwegians have strict quotas on
whales taken in, but not on the harpoons that were shot.  So Greenpeace
released a wounded whale (with the harpoon still in it) so that the
Norwegians could go hunt another one. Somebody wake up . . .  The only
good news is that Greenpeace recently announced that they will stop
paying attention to the whaling issue in Norway.

Following the collision between the Sea Shepherd "Whales Forever" and
the Norwegian "Andenes" on July 6, 1994, the Sea Shepherds published
their version of this incident through articles in Earth First, their
own press releases, and by material handed to other publications, such
as Animal People.  Paul Watson, Captain of the Whales Forever and
director of the Sea Shepherds, released his own "Captain's Log" of the
incident.  These stories were released in whole or as summaries across
several Internet, Rime, and Fidonet conferences.

In Andrew Christie's article in Earth First, the Sea Shepherds were
"fighting for their own lives in the North Sea, in a running pursuit and
battle with the .... Andenes."  He further explained that the Sea
Shepherds were in international waters, but that the Andenes claimed
they were invading Norwegian territorial waters. Finally, he stated "as
it (Andenes) came up on the starboard side, it cut its port turn short
and attempted to ram the Whales Forever amidships.  Watson threw the
wheel hard to starboard to avoid the ram.  The Andenes struck the bow of
the Whales Forever. . ."
                        
The Sea Shepherd article was so biased and verbose with the "bravery and
courage" of the authors that it was difficult sorting through all of it.
The Sea Shepherds released stories that basically painted the Norwegians
as a bunch of blood-crazed fanatics out to destroy the Sea Shepherd
vessel.  After several years of putting up with Paul Watson, many
Norwegians would probably say this is not a bad idea.  Radicalism is
unnecessary in this case as a brief review of the history of the
incident and the actions of the Sea Shepherds lends itself to a
different story, one not so favorable to the Sea Shepherds.

Paul Watson had been tried and convicted in absentia in Norway for
damage to a whaling vessel, an incident that Mr. Watson has readily
admitted to on several occasions.  He is considered a fugitive-at-large
by the Norwegians and can be arrested on sight.  So any vessel commanded
by Mr. Watson would be considered a threat to the safety of Norwegian
vessels and would be appropriately detained.

Prior to their arrival off the coast of Norway, the Sea Shepherds
released not one, but two press statements on July 1 and July 5, 1994
saying they were headed for Norwegian waters.  The first press release
stated "We have already sunk two Norwegian pirate whalers.  We intend to
sink more."  The press releases indicated the intent of the Sea
Shepherds to violate the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
regarding those articles concerning "innocent passage."  At this time,
the Norwegian Coast Guard HAD NO OPTIONS, but were bound by the laws and
mission mandates of their country to stop the Sea Shepherds from a)
endangering any vessel or Norwegians in the area, and b) entering
Norwegian waters.

Andrew Christie in his article in Earth First made a soap-box of the
fact that a three-mile limit from shore is the international standard,
and that Norway claims a twelve-mile territorial limit. In actuality,
Norway claims a four-mile limit, which everybody interviewed for this
article (IWC, U.S. Navy, State Dept., etc.) seemed to be aware of.  Even
worse, the four-mile territorial limit was not relevant here because the
Whales Forever entered West Fjord, which is considered an internal
waterway by Norway.

As it was, the Norwegians were very generous on their initial approach
to the situation.  The Norwegian Coast Guard Ship Andenes did nothing
but parallel the course of the Whales Forever for several hundred miles
until the Whales Forever started to enter West Fjord (Vestfjorden).  At
that time, the Andenes warned the Sea Shepherd vessel that it was
entering Norwegian territorial waters BEFORE the Andenes took any
actions to detain the Sea Shepherd vessel.  Paul Watson claimed he was
in international waters and kept right on going, conveniently forgetting
those laws concerning the internal waters of a country.  It was a little
like saying that the Hudson Bay does not belong to Canada.  About this
time, Mr. Watson signaled by flag for free passage to Reine, Norway.
Again he conveniently forgot his two previous press releases, and that
the Norwegians were under no obligation to grant him passage of any
kind.  Mr. Watson also seemed to be overlooking that in traveling to
Reine he would have to cross, by his own definition, Norwegian
territorial waters.  Even more ridiculous is the "Captain's Log" of the
incident, in which Watson stated that Norway was warning him of entering
their territorial waters, then later stated that Norway had not relayed
to him that West Fjord was considered Norwegian waters.

The Sea Shepherds claimed that the Andenes rammed their vessel. But the
Sea Shepherds description of the incident was so verbose that it was
hard not to think that there was more to the incident than the Sea
Shepherds were telling.  Particularly since it was the Whales Forever's
bow that was caved in.  And again (not that this should make any
difference) the Whales Forever had been warned by the Norwegians to
leave, and the Sea Shepherds ignored this warning.

The Andenes tried to stop and detain the Whales Forever by towing
hawsers in front of the Whales Forever in an attempt to foul its
propellers.  It is during this time frame that the two ships collided.
Because most pictures and video of the incident were from the
perspective of each ship, it would be difficult to tell who was at fault
(the perspective of the camera would make it seem like the ship the
camera was on was stationary). However, the Norwegians were also taping
the incident from a helicopter, a unique perspective that clearly shows
the movements of both ships before impact.  It shows the Andenes on a
parallel course and passing the Whales Forever when the Whales Forever
took a hard right turn and rammed the Andenes.  The Norwegian vessel can
be seen turning hard to starboard (right) to avoid the collision.

The Sea Shepherds claim that because the film's perspective misses the
actual collision, it is not relevant.  It is obvious that the pilot of
the helicopter was maneuvering to the "collision" side of the Andenes,
and that there is more than sufficient footage to show that the Whales
Forever was at fault for the collision.

The Andenes tried several other methods to stop the Whales Forever,
including firing across the vessel's bow.  During this time, it can only
be surmised that Watson panicked, because he issued a false mayday,
claiming that several members of his crew had been "hit by gunfire,"
which was not the case.  The false mayday was duly logged into the Coast
Guard station in New York.  Watson's crew also contacted the U.S.
Embassy in Norway, but it appears the U.S. State Dept. was a little
better briefed on maritime law than the Sea Shepherds.  The Embassy
basically ignored the Sea Shepherds requests.


Throughout this incident and in other press releases, the Sea Shepherds
have talked about Norway's "illegal activities" and their violation of
the IWC articles.  As odd as it sounds, the opposite is actually true.
Norway objected to the IWC articles as the covenants allowed, thus was
not bound by the moratorium.  Norway voluntarily halted whaling for
several years, hoping the IWC would fulfill its obligations under its
charter and establish a management scheme for the sustainable harvest of
non-endangered species.  (Whether those of us opposed to whaling like or
not, that was one of the primary objectives of the IWC.)  The IWC has
yet to adopt a management scheme.
  
If the Sea Shepherds had been forthright in their reporting of the
incident instead of making up excuses for everything they did wrong, the
story may have turned out differently.  The whales of the world do need
to be protected, a fact that even the Norwegians agree with.  A small
vessel, valiantly defying a sovereign nation in attempt to save whales,
flying in the face of international law, may have won some favor. But
instead we are presented with a bunch of whining kids who have a
penchant for relying on double-standards instead of courage and honesty.
Worse, this type of misinformation only provides fuel for those opposed
to their position, and make it easier for pro-whaling forces in Norway
to make headway, something that several delegates to the IWC have
remarked on.  It is also embarrassing that a group such as this, that
has threatened the lives of citizens of a foreign country and misled the
public about their activities, can operate as a non-profit entity in the
United States.

Finally, on July 21, 1994, Mr. Watson and the Sea Shepherds released "An
Open Letter to the People of Norway."  The  first sentence of this
three-page letter starts out like this: "In a pathetic attempt to defend
your indefensible illegal whaling activities, your government has
compromised the Norwegian constitution and has promoted a tyrannous
annexation of authority over international waters."  Diplomacy is
obviously not one of Mr. Watson's strong points and letters such as this
can only heighten the resolve of Norway's pro-whaling forces.  Worse,it
ensures that the majority of Norwegian citizens will have no sympathy
for the efforts of his organization, and that the issue itself will be
lost among rhetoric that only incites anger.

Maybe the whales could use a better spokesperson . . .