 |
The Heritage Network
HUMPBACK WHALES & THE ANTARCTIC TERRITORIES
- AUSTRALIA'S ANTARCTIC HERITAGE HARPOONED -
(June 2005)
The current debate over whether or not whales should be harvested for any purpose misses the point. The real issue here was noted by Prime Minister John Howard in a reference to Australian sovereignty over the Antarctic Territories, an issue that should be right at the heart of our national consciousness. In order to fully understand the complexities inherent in Australia's reaction to a threatened resumption of whaling by Japan, that may well involve intrusions upon marine environments over which Australia has jurisdiction, we need to revisit the region's history. Since the evolution of Australasian British colonies into self-governing states during the later half of the 19th century and their federation as the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, a number of other British territories in the region have been ceded to the young sovereign nation, not least those to the far south. As early as 1810, various territorial claims south of 50 degrees south latitude were being made for Britain and from 1933 to 1948 significant British territories south of 60 degrees south latitude were progressively ceded to Australia. This contributed to a sizeable portion of the Antarctic continent, now part of the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT), coming under Australian sovereignty together with several island groups just to the north. In 1959 twelve nations, including Australia and Japan, became original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty and in 1961 they met for the first time with other member nations hosted in Canberra. Then in 1979, the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) and in 1994, the Economic Exclusion Zone (EEC) were declared. The AFZ restricts fishing by foreigners from the 12 mile seaward limit of the territorial sea out to roughly 200 nautical miles off the Australian coastline including off-shore and sub-Antarctic territories of the Cocos, Christmas, Norfolk, Lord Howe, Macquarie, Heard and McDonald Islands in addition to the AAT. However, it may be claimed that the Antarctic Treaty precludes AAT beyond 60 degrees south latitude from being included in these declarations as it could be seen to breach terms prohibiting any enhancement of territorial claims there during the life of the treaty.
From a purely pragmatic view point there is absolutely no reason why whale meat should not be a viable food source any more than kangaroo, sheep, cow, chicken, goanna, turtle, shark, dog ..... the list goes on. However, there is very good reason to restrict or ban the harvest of endangered species', or to 'manage' that of any species which is likely to be put at risk by such attentions. Humpback whales are clearly a species at risk and it is interesting to note that most countries would waste no time sending a frigate or coast-guard launch to forcibly deal with illegal harvesting of shell-fish or impose a maritime blockade on foreign vessels in foreign waters should they perceive a need. If you are an Indonesian or Timorese fisherman operating off Australia's north west coastline it doesn't matter whether you are bringing in an illegal human cargo or filling the hold with a poached marine catch for the return voyage, if the Australian authorities discover you it's a fair bet your vessel will end up destroyed and you will be charged (and rightly so). However, if you are a Japanese company operating off Australia's Antarctic coastline or in the waters around sub-Antarctic territories, no problem ..... knock yourself out. The reason given for this apparent inconsistency is one of recognition, Japan's lack of it in fact for Australian sovereignty over the AAT. News Flash - Australian Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic Territorial integrity is not dependant upon Japanese recognition.
There is another area of dispute with regard to 'recognition' of Australian jurisdiction and it lies in the Timor Sea. In reference to disputes with Timor over this area of ocean Prime Minister Howard seemed firmly committed to the Australian position when he reportedly expressed the view that having a poor neighbour is no reason for ceding territory to them. Further a field we have the Republic Of China (ROC), known to the rest of the world as Taiwan and universally lacking recognition in deference to the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC). This island 'nation' enjoys no international recognition of sovereignty over land or territorial waters yet there are no shortage of heavy weight protests, both diplomatic and military, should the PRC breach this area of ocean that neither they, nor anyone else (other than the ROC), recognize as ROC territory. Not that long ago Britain defended a claim over the Faulkland Islands with force against Argentina who did not recognize them as British territory. Native peoples the world over refuse to recognize sovereignty of their governments which they see as occupiers, descendants of the old colonial powers, but they are still required to comply with the laws of the land.
The Antarctic Treaty did not extinguish national sovereignty beyond 60 degrees south latitude but rather was intended to diffuse any potential rivalry resulting from such territorial claims while ensuring the long-term protection of Antarctica. A number of agreements since the 1959 signing of this Treaty have served to further ensure its environmental protection and that of the surrounding ocean. In 1972 negotiations began for a comprehensive convention governing commercial fishing in Antarctic waters. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), concluded in 1980, established the world's only fisheries management agreement seeking to manage the whole ecosystem rather than just individual commercial species. Australia hosts the CCAMLR secretariat in Hobart (the only international convention with headquarters in Australia) where members meet annually. In 1989 Australia sought the support of Antarctic Treaty countries for comprehensive environmental protection of the continent and its surrounding seas. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Madrid Protocol), signed by Treaty members in that city in 1991, was a direct result of this Australian-French initiative. It was a landmark agreement in the history of the Antarctic Treaty. The preamble to the Madrid Protocol declares that protection of the Antarctic environment and ecosystems is in the interest of the whole of humanity. The Protocol, which came into force in 1998, was the culmination of a growing concern among parties to the Antarctic Treaty about the global importance of the Antarctic environment and the need to protect it from the effects of increasing human Antarctic activity.
How is illegal whaling of an endangered species and the rape of our collective Antarctic marine heritage going to enhance the Antarctic Treaty and subsequent agreements? If honouring an international obligation to manage and protect the marine environment means defending it from illegal harvest, whether that be conducted from the deck of an Indonesian trawler or a Japanese factory ship from another hemisphere, then defend it we must. If terms of the treaty prohibit Australia as a nation from this course of action then parties to the treaty must be engaged to do so collectively. At one time Prime Minister John Howard, on being criticized by the PRC government for his planned meeting with the Dalai Lama of Tibet during an Australian visit, reportedly made it clear that he would not be instructed by foreign governments on whom he should meet with and that sometimes the right thing to do may not always be the most expedient. Protecting our marine environment is the "right thing to do" and claiming our heritage is worth standing up for. Someone noted that the USA doesn't recognize Australian sovereignty over the Antarctic Territories either, but it's not US harpoons that are heading south to slaughter endangered Humpback whales in the oceans bordering those territories.
In 1991, Antarctic nations paused to reflect on three decades of achievement under the Treaty system. The Treaty, they declared, "provides an example to the world of how nations can successfully work together to preserve a major part of this planet, for the benefit of all mankind". The declaration concluded that the Madrid Protocol demonstrated the parties' determination "to maintain and strengthen the Treaty and to protect Antarctica's environmental and scientific values". These declarations are just so much hot air if parties to the treaty are prepared to sit back and watch one of their own thumb its nose at the rest while proceeding to drive Humpback whales to the brink of extinction - again.
The current debate over whether or not whales should be harvested for any purpose misses the point. The real issue here was noted by Prime Minister John Howard in a reference to Australian sovereignty over the Antarctic Territories, an issue that should be right at the heart of our national consciousness. In order to fully understand the complexities inherent in Australia's reaction to a threatened resumption of whaling by Japan, that may well involve intrusions upon marine environments over which Australia has jurisdiction, we need to revisit the region's history. Since the evolution of Australasian British colonies into self-governing states during the later half of the 19th century and their federation as the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, a number of other British territories in the region have been ceded to the young sovereign nation, not least those to the far south. As early as 1810, various territorial claims south of 50 degrees south latitude were being made for Britain and from 1933 to 1948 significant British territories south of 60 degrees south latitude were progressively ceded to Australia. This contributed to a sizeable portion of the Antarctic continent, now part of the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT), coming under Australian sovereignty together with several island groups just to the north. In 1959 twelve nations, including Australia and Japan, became original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty and in 1961 they met for the first time with other member nations hosted in Canberra. Then in 1979, the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) and in 1994, the Economic Exclusion Zone (EEC) were declared. The AFZ restricts fishing by foreigners from the 12 mile seaward limit of the territorial sea out to roughly 200 nautical miles off the Australian coastline including off-shore and sub-Antarctic territories of the Cocos, Christmas, Norfolk, Lord Howe, Macquarie, Heard and McDonald Islands in addition to the AAT. However, it may be claimed that the Antarctic Treaty precludes AAT beyond 60 degrees south latitude from being included in these declarations as it could be seen to breach terms prohibiting any enhancement of territorial claims there during the life of the treaty.
From a purely pragmatic view point there is absolutely no reason why whale meat should not be a viable food source any more than kangaroo, sheep, cow, chicken, goanna, turtle, shark, dog ..... the list goes on. However, there is very good reason to restrict or ban the harvest of endangered species', or to 'manage' that of any species which is likely to be put at risk by such attentions. Humpback whales are clearly a species at risk and it is interesting to note that most countries would waste no time sending a frigate or coast-guard launch to forcibly deal with illegal harvesting of shell-fish or impose a maritime blockade on foreign vessels in foreign waters should they perceive a need. If you are an Indonesian or Timorese fisherman operating off Australia's north west coastline it doesn't matter whether you are bringing in an illegal human cargo or filling the hold with a poached marine catch for the return voyage, if the Australian authorities discover you it's a fair bet your vessel will end up destroyed and you will be charged (and rightly so). However, if you are a Japanese company operating off Australia's Antarctic coastline or in the waters around sub-Antarctic territories, no problem ..... knock yourself out. The reason given for this apparent inconsistency is one of recognition, Japan's lack of it in fact for Australian sovereignty over the AAT. News Flash - Australian Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic Territorial integrity is not dependant upon Japanese recognition.
There is another area of dispute with regard to 'recognition' of Australian jurisdiction and it lies in the Timor Sea. In reference to disputes with Timor over this area of ocean Prime Minister Howard seemed firmly committed to the Australian position when he reportedly expressed the view that having a poor neighbour is no reason for ceding territory to them. Further a field we have the Republic Of China (ROC), known to the rest of the world as Taiwan and universally lacking recognition in deference to the Peoples' Republic of China (PRC). This island 'nation' enjoys no international recognition of sovereignty over land or territorial waters yet there are no shortage of heavy weight protests, both diplomatic and military, should the PRC breach this area of ocean that neither they, nor anyone else (other than the ROC), recognize as ROC territory. Not that long ago Britain defended a claim over the Faulkland Islands with force against Argentina who did not recognize them as British territory. Native peoples the world over refuse to recognize sovereignty of their governments which they see as occupiers, descendants of the old colonial powers, but they are still required to comply with the laws of the land.
The Antarctic Treaty did not extinguish national sovereignty beyond 60 degrees south latitude but rather was intended to diffuse any potential rivalry resulting from such territorial claims while ensuring the long-term protection of Antarctica. A number of agreements since the 1959 signing of this Treaty have served to further ensure its environmental protection and that of the surrounding ocean. In 1972 negotiations began for a comprehensive convention governing commercial fishing in Antarctic waters. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), concluded in 1980, established the world's only fisheries management agreement seeking to manage the whole ecosystem rather than just individual commercial species. Australia hosts the CCAMLR secretariat in Hobart (the only international convention with headquarters in Australia) where members meet annually. In 1989 Australia sought the support of Antarctic Treaty countries for comprehensive environmental protection of the continent and its surrounding seas. The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (the Madrid Protocol), signed by Treaty members in that city in 1991, was a direct result of this Australian-French initiative. It was a landmark agreement in the history of the Antarctic Treaty. The preamble to the Madrid Protocol declares that protection of the Antarctic environment and ecosystems is in the interest of the whole of humanity. The Protocol, which came into force in 1998, was the culmination of a growing concern among parties to the Antarctic Treaty about the global importance of the Antarctic environment and the need to protect it from the effects of increasing human Antarctic activity.
How is illegal whaling of an endangered species and the rape of our collective Antarctic marine heritage going to enhance the Antarctic Treaty and subsequent agreements? If honouring an international obligation to manage and protect the marine environment means defending it from illegal harvest, whether that be conducted from the deck of an Indonesian trawler or a Japanese factory ship from another hemisphere, then defend it we must. If terms of the treaty prohibit Australia as a nation from this course of action then parties to the treaty must be engaged to do so collectively. At one time Prime Minister John Howard, on being criticized by the PRC government for his planned meeting with the Dalai Lama of Tibet during an Australian visit, reportedly made it clear that he would not be instructed by foreign governments on whom he should meet with and that sometimes the right thing to do may not always be the most expedient. Protecting our marine environment is the "right thing to do" and claiming our heritage is worth standing up for. Someone noted that the USA doesn't recognize Australian sovereignty over the Antarctic Territories either, but it's not US harpoons that are heading south to slaughter endangered Humpback whales in the oceans bordering those territories.
In 1991, Antarctic nations paused to reflect on three decades of achievement under the Treaty system. The Treaty, they declared, "provides an example to the world of how nations can successfully work together to preserve a major part of this planet, for the benefit of all mankind". The declaration concluded that the Madrid Protocol demonstrated the parties' determination "to maintain and strengthen the Treaty and to protect Antarctica's environmental and scientific values". These declarations are just so much hot air if parties to the treaty are prepared to sit back and watch one of their own thumb its nose at the rest while proceeding to drive Humpback whales to the brink of extinction - again.