Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. These were Cockburn’s rules for how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, CounterPunch will get a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC (This photo of Alexander Cockburn and Jasper, on the couch that launched 1000 columns, was taken in Petrolia by Tao Ruspoli)
 Day 19

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

The Question for Japan

To Whale or Not to Whale

by PAUL WATSON

The Japanese Foreign Ministry says Japan will abide by the verdict but the Japanese Ministry of Fisheries wants the “research” program to continue. The Institute for Cetacean Research, a government owned entity is saying that the Japanese whaling fleet will return to the Southern Ocean in 2015/2016.

The ICR will be petitioning a U.S. Federal Court in Seattle this week to request a permanent injunction against Sea Shepherd USA to prevent Sea Shepherd interventions against their illegal whaling operations in the Southern Ocean.

It is a move that makes little sense considering that Sea Shepherd USA withdrew from the Southern Ocean because of the temporary injunction granted to the whalers in December 2012.

However the ICR is now requesting that the U.S. Federal Court order Sea Shepherd Australia to abide by the injunction despite the fact that the U.S. Federal Courts have no jurisdiction over the activities of Sea Shepherd Australia.

Sea Shepherd USA has fully complied with the temporary injunction and will of course comply with a permanent injunction if issued.

In their submission to the U.S. Court the ICR states that they fully intend to return to the Southern Ocean for the 2015/2016 season. They expect the court to give them a permanent injunction to protect a whaling operation that the Japanese government has publicly stated will not take place.

What sort of games are they playing in Japan over this issue of whaling?

The Japanese whaling industry has a history of lying and duplicity with regards to whaling. In the Sixties, Japanese and Russian whaling fleets both under-reported kill figures every year, taking a third more whales than they reported.

Japan however is in a bind. If they ignore the ICJ ruling they risk undermining their own position should the ICJ be asked to rule on the dispute between Japan and China over the contested islands of Kita-Kojima and Minami-Kojima in the Senkaku Island dispute.

In the recent meeting between Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the Australian leader said nothing about whaling, sending a message to Abe that Australia will no longer oppose Japanese whaling in Australian Antarctic Territorial waters.

Sea Shepherd Australia will most likely encounter obstructions from the Australian government if the whalers return. Japan may even seek an injunction in the Australian Federal Court although this is highly unlikely considering that the Japanese whalers are presently in contempt of the Australian Federal Court.

For Tony Abbott it is a dilemma. The people of Australia overwhelmingly oppose whaling in the Southern Ocean and he is supposed to represent the will of the Australian people despite his obsession for trade relations at all costs.

This week will decide if the U.S. Federal Court will grant a permanent injunction to the Institute for Cetacean Research. If they do, it will be because Japan has convinced the court that they fully intend to return to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary to resume the killing of the whales.

Will a U.S. Court make a decision in defiance of a verdict by the International Court of Justice? It is highly unlikely.

Although what the granting of such an injunction will mean is difficult to understand because the injunction will only impact Sea Shepherd USA and Sea Shepherd USA has no intention of returning to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

Nonetheless the request for a permanent injunction has already heralded the reality that the ICR at least is planning on returning to the Southern Ocean in December 2015.

The other problem for Japan is their aging whaling fleet. They will have to make a decision soon to commission the construction of a replacement factory ship. This will be an enormous expense for an industry that has not made a profit in decades.

The ICJ gave Japan a face-saving way to exit from their embarrassing bogus research whaling scam. If they retreat now they will be able to say that it is because of their respect for the rule of law.

If they return they will be declaring to the world that they have little respect for international law and that they intend to do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want.

This of course will be consistent with Japanese foreign and fishery policy for over a century.

Paul Watson is the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.