The fishermen in the small Japanese village of Taiji, every September to March, gather around a guarded cove that is used to lure in dolphins by the hundreds to slaughter every day. Graphic images of the fishermen’s tactics have since become brought to the public’s attention ever since the activism of eco-terrorist Ric O’Barry and eco-terrorist groups. Ric O’Barry, and various eco-terrorism organizations such the Sea Shepard Conservation Society, has brought to light the various failures and corruption of liberal organizations such as the International Whaling Commission-otherwise known as the IWC- and the fishermen that engage in the gross nature of dolphin fishing[i]. The means as to how these eco-terrorists were able to accomplish capturing footage of the heinous act of dolphin fishing often involved breaking a multitude of Taiji’s and Japan’s laws. By breaking these laws these eco-terrorists not only brought exigency to condemning Japan and the dolphin hunting fishermen, but also to the condemning the failures of some liberal institutions such as the IWC.
Liberal institutions such as the UN, NATO, and the EU act as international institutions that provide a community for sovereign states to interact with each other in a formal matter that enables international cooperation and collective security. However, liberal institutions do not always provide stories of success. In contrast, international organizations such as the International Whaling Commission (IWC) receive criticism for providing an international stage that provides no feasible resolutions that can help detour whaling and dolphin hunting. Dolphin hunting has especially caused a dissonance between the sovereign state of Japan and the members with who they are obligated in a social contract with, the people of Japan and the IWC. The failure of the IWC to regulate Japan’s fishing has only further enabled Japan to continue their practice; a practice that affects the people of Japan, the global ecosystem, and most importantly, to international relation scholars, the legitimacy of liberal institutions.
The IWC only has the ability to lawfully hold Japan accountable for the deaths of large cetaceans; however, no international organization holds the states that endanger small cetaceans such as dolphins[ii]. The IWC is only able to recommend certain procedures that many states like Japan blatantly ignore because of the profit they reap from dolphin hunting. Japan would still be able to get away with the killing of dolphins even if the IWC was able to pass legislation that banned it. This is because the IWC itself is a weak liberal institution that offers no incentives for members to play by the rules. Working liberal institutions are able to get work done by being able to hold troops, sanctions, and trade over members who purposefully do not follow regulations. The IWC does not have any troops, promises, threats, or substantial resources that would pin Japan down to abide by international law. Lastly, the IWC is a purely voluntarily organization; meaning states can opt out of a decision based on filing a notice within ninety days. These notices have been filed by states like Norway and Russia in order to maintain their activities of whale hunting in the early 1990s and 2000s for food purposes[iii]. The IWC, as a liberal institution, has proved itself to be an inefficient international organization that doesn’t effectively enact an overall policy that can be carried out.
This is where eco-terrorist organizations and activists such as Ric O’Barry and the Sea Shepard Conservation Society step in in order to try to regulate Japan’s dolphin hunting as civilians with the first amendment. As seen in the Micewski article, there are both programmatic rights and transcendental rights that states and non-state actors can violate[iv]. What is unusual about some eco-terrorists, such as Ric O’Barry, is that he does not violate the transcendental rights of citizens and civilians when trying to accomplish the goal of reforming the dolphin hunting industry in Japan. Instead, he has committed small crimes which have lead him to be arrested multiple times, for activities such as breaking and entering, freeing privately owned sea life, etc which have brought attention to his cause and enlightened the public about international whaling/dolphin fishing crimes[v].
As said in the Miceweksi article that was read this week, “…terrorists do not refrain from the most supreme sacrifices and cruelties, as they are well aware that the success of their intentions and beliefs is dependent on their impact on the public.[vi]” Eco-terrorist groups all over the world strive for media attention in order to not be belittled as simply ordinary tree-huggers. Time in jail and being blacklisted from the country of Japan were only some of the consequences that Ric O’Barry had to face in order to shed light on the startling information of the dolphin hunting that was happening in Taiji. Ric O’Barrys efforts are not exceptional though; many other eco-terrorists go to even further lengths in order to make sure that the media hears their message loud and clear. Organizations such as the Sea Shepard Conservation Society, lead by Paul Watson, have been known to sink and attack whaling ships[vii]. Ultimately, both forms of eco-terrorism, as recognized by the state of Japan, achieve possibly the most important goal of bringing media attention to the issue at hand.
It is interesting that two groups, non-state actors that act differently in the way they treat transcendental rights, have the same aims but use different means in order to get their message across. Those who impose on the transcendental rights of innocent civilians, such as the Sea Shepard Conservation Society, receive negative reputations as insane environmentalists who may receive media spotlight but do nothing to effectively further their cause in a way that is legal. However, activists like Ric O’Barry, who are willing to break laws that don’t infringe on transcendental rights, are more able to gather support for their cause. Although he may be a radical environmentalist he was able to condense his message in an award-winning documentary titled The Cove, which was able to carry the message of environmentalists to the general public in a sensible manner.
Why is it that many of these terrorist organizations, whether they are left-leaning or right-leaning, tend to undermine the importance of carrying out your message without resorting to imposing on the transcendental rights, such as the right to live. Media attention is important in furthering messages, however, violence and murder outside of war only gives others opportunity to classify the message as too radical. If terrorist organizations were able to refrain from violence and murder maybe their organizations and their respective messages would be seen as more legitimate to outside bodies such as sovereign state governments, liberal institutions, and the general public. So fellow world politic bloggers, the question that I wonder is whether there is effectiveness in simply breaking misdemeanors and committing smaller crimes like Ric O’Barry rather than grand schemes that may push your agenda worldwide such as Al-Qaeda’s or Hamas’. I suppose the answer is that there is no answer; that the answer depends upon the situation like many other International Relation phenomena’s, but maybe there are patterns that others see that I cant.
[i] Mark, Jason. “Conversation: Ric O’Barry.” Earth Island Journal, Vol. 26, Issue 2. Academic Search Premiere. Web. Oct. 21, 2011.
[ii] Nishi, Yui. “Dolphins, Whales, and the Future of the International Whaling Commission.” Hastings International and Comparative law Review. Vol 33, Issue 1. PAIS International. Web. Oct. 21, 2011.
[iii] Blichfeldt, Georg. “The Controversial Beef: Norway Resumes Whaling.” Scandinavian Review, Vol. 80, Issue 2. Academic Search Premier. Web. Oct. 22. 2011.
[iv] Micewski article from in class
[v]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/whales/interviews/obarry1.html
[vi] Micewski article from in class
[vii] Field, Michael. “Anti-Whaling Campaign Goes “Kamikaze”.” http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/5723065/Anti-whaling-campaign-goes-kamikaze
Great example Ryan. I think this situation poses the perfect question in the discussion of terrorist groups for good causes. (That seems so awkward to say) I feel the most successful and legitimate organizations are those who act responsibly and "follow the rules" so to say. In the case of the LRA and the Ugandan crisis, Invisible Children uses film and social media to reveal the atrocities of the war without break laws or killing LRA troops.
ReplyDeleteHaving said this, I see a pattern in the various acts of terrorism. The groups that use violence are directly effected and feel a personal attack on their rights by regimes and institutions that repress them. Although it is sad the Japanese are killing cute dolphins, we are not overtly and directly effected by their acts. We are removed from the situation by distance, culture, customs and circumstances. They are not personally effecting our way of life or infringing on our rights. So these small acts of civil disobedience work for this cause. It causes enough stir and question to grow into a fairly peaceful movement.
Hey Ryan,
ReplyDeleteYour blog completely threw me off by talking about terrorism used for a good cause. I had never associated terrorism with helping any cause.
I certainly believe that the right to life is more important than any other human rights, and even if these fishermen are hunting dolphins illegally, they are not responsible for the fact that Japan is allowing them to fish.
I also believe that small acts, like Rick O'Barry's are an excellent example of the powers of civil disobedience. While Rick O'Barry was put in jail and is no longer allowed in Japan, he brought international attention to his cause without harming anyone else. Terrorist groups like al-Quaeda have an entirely different way of going about their objectives. Al-Qaeda is using violence and force to try to create Islamic theocracies in all Arab countries while removing all American influence from the region. While Rick O'Barry is trying to create awareness so that states will take action to support his cause. O'Barry's goal is much easier; the general public is much more willing to help a cause like dolphin fishing than to help Al-Qaeda because one is seen as good and the other bad.
So those are some of my opinions in response to the question you posed. I'm also curious as to whether or not other countries see the acts of the Sea Shephard Conservation Society and Rick O'Barry as acts of terrorism? Or is it Japan that has given these people that title?