Policy Paper Concerns

My concerns about my paper are that it is not long enough and that my solution may be too simple. I am unsure if my justification is strong enough or if I should continue saying why other solutions would not work. There are many problems surrounding Japan's whaling policy and I tried to narrow it down to their unnecessary scientific research, bribing developing countries, and the possibility of the moratorium being lifted. I just want to make sure the complex problem is clear enough in my paper.

Planning Essay 4

The problem is that Japan's whaling policy does not fit within the IWC's regulations.


-The Japanese Government does not want to change its policy because they feel it fits within the country's traditional, cultural and scientific values as well as benefits the country's national interest.

-The Scientists from the Scientific Committee in the IWC feel that from a scientific standpoint Japan's policy does not have any scientific value. They feel that Japan's scientific research is wasteful and unnecessary.

- The Japanese public is shifting slowly away from a pro-whaling position. This is due to their lack of interest in whale meat and their knowledge of the recent embezzlement scandal.

-Anti-whaling organizations oppose whaling because it is cruel to the whales. They believe the whales die a slow and painful death that is absolutely inhumane.

I am leaning more towards a proposal paper because I want to give a specific solution. I agree with anti-whaling perspectives that Japan's whaling policy should be changed and that whaling should be stopped. I have some sources already that give ideas on how to solve this problem but once I pick one solution I will need to research that solution more in-depth.

Revisions

I received my peer review late last night so I did not use it to change anything in my paper. I read over my paper several times though and I am fine with the first draft I submitted. After reading over my peer's comments this morning, I see that I may need to reorganize the layout of my paper. I agree with her suggestions and I am going to leave the content but play around with paragraph organization. The strongest element of my paper I think is my perspective from the Japanese Government and my perspective from the Scientists. I was able to find the most information on both of those perspectives therefore I think their opinions come across very clear. I am concerned about letting my bias on whaling show through my writing, but my peer gave me a helpful suggestion to fix that. By mixing up my anti-whaling and pro-whaling paragraphs it will make my paper seem more balanced rather than biased.

Chicken in the Henhouse

• Sedaris argues that the American public stereotypes homosexuals as immoral and even as pedophiles. Those who make these accusations are ignorant and should not be seen as credible. Sedaris uses himself as evidence by showing that he feels like he is being constantly judged, regardless of if people know his sexual orientation or not. This essay gives his personal experience of one day at a hotel that shows how he feels on a daily basis. The end of the essay is a surprise to him, as well as the reader, when Sedaris is complimented on his behavior rather than criticized and judged. It shows how it is ridiculous that homosexuals like him have to be constantly worried about their actions when they are not doing anything wrong and have good intentions. Sedaris uses humor to convey his feelings about Audrey because it is a much more subtle technique to show disapproval than anger or indignation. Humor is harder to argue with or oppose than outright anger. Sedaris uses humor as a way to show how ignorant Audrey’s comments on homosexuals were. Audrey was so naive that Sedaris did not even feel the need to prove what she was saying wrong. He made a joke out of her comments because they should never be taken seriously. His title of this essay exemplifies her ignorance as well. Audrey could not even correctly say the old saying "fox in the henhouse" so the rest of her comments should not be seen as credible either.

Annotated Bibliography

Ackerman, Reuben B. "Japanese Whaling in the Pacific Ocean: Defiance of International Whaling Norms in the Name of Scientific Research, Culture, and Tradition."HeinOnline.org. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. <http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/bcic25>.

The author of this article takes the position against Japan’s whaling policy based on the policy’s violation of international and environmental laws and regulations. It also defines the United States’ position and how the country is pushing for reform of Japan’s policy. Not only does the author point out all of the violations in Japan’s policy, but it provides possible solutions for reforming it as well. The author believes that the International Whaling Committee has failed in its efforts to enforce any punishment for Japan’s violations and urges the United States to impose trade sanctions until Japan changes its practices. I will use this article to show how Japan has violated whaling regulations as well a resource to base my possible solutions off of. This article further explains the whaling controversy but from the side of anti-whalers. It can also be used to help definite the United States’ involvement in the controversy.

CATALINAC, AMY; CHAN, GERALD. "Ingentaconnect Japan, the West, and the Whaling Issue: Understanding the Japanes..." Ingentaconnect Home. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. <http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rjfo/2005/00000017/00000001/art00007>.

This article outlines the whaling issue by specifically focusing on the Japanese perspective. The author explains how Japan’s whaling policy was formed based around both the country’s need for whales as a resource and their need to remain a responsible member of the international community. The author writes to an audience that is against Japan’s whaling policy in an attempt to prove that Japan is not purely motivated to whale hunt based on its commercial value. The article begins by outlining the history of whaling in general and then narrows it down to show how Japan’s policy has changed over time. It explains Japan’s use of whales as an irreplaceable resource and how anti-whalers misinform and manipulate the public. The article also explains how international pressures, especially from the United States, have affected Japan’s policy as well and why those pressures are the reason that Japan’s policy is likely to change again. This article is useful to me because it outlines the Japanese perspective from all angles and shows how those who support whaling view anti-whaling groups. Although ultimately I support the anti-whaling groups, this article is a very good outline of the opposing side.

Hamazaki, Toshihide, and Dai Tanno. "Approval Of Whaling And Whaling-Related Beliefs: Public Opinion In Whaling And Nonwhaling Countries." Human Dimensions Of Wildlife 6.2 (2001): 131-144. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Nov. 2011.

The first author is a fish and wildlife researcher from New Mexico and the second author is in the department of economics and is from Japan. These authors together provide a look at whaling from a scientific and economic standpoint as well as provide views from different regions of the world. The research they performed was on the public opinion of whaling in both whaling and non-whaling countries. What they found was that approval of whaling was positively correlated with approval of consumption of whale meat. This means that countries that approve of whaling also approve of the consumption of whale meat. What is most interesting, however, is that they found in both whaling and non-whaling countries approval of whaling was not correlated with knowledge about population of whales. This shows that the public from both whaling and non-whaling countries are unaware of the danger of the extinction of whales. This information is useful to me because it shows that the citizens of Japan and Norway who support whaling are supporting something they know very little about. There may be a chance that if the public is informed about the dangers of whaling that they would no longer support it.

"Japan Urged to Abandon Outdated Whaling Policy | IFAW Web Site." Animal Rescue - Animal Welfare, Save The Whales, Save Animals - IFAW.org | IFAW Web Site. IFAW, 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 07 Nov. 2011. <http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_international/media_center/press_releases/9_30_2011_72079.php>.

The organization IFAW stands for The International Fund for Animal Welfare, and is biased based on its concern for the protection of animals in crisis. Because of this bias, this organization is strongly anti-whaling. The article focuses on Japan’s return to Antarctica to kill more whales, and urges all governments to take strong action to end Japan’s whaling. It also gives disturbing facts about the cruelty of the process of killing a whale. This article presents an interesting point of view that states that Japan’s whaling business is dying. It is no longer a source of significant profit and the article ironically describes whale watching as a more popular business. This article is useful to me because it presents the view of whaling from an extremely anti-whaling organization. It presents a view more from the public than scientists or researchers. The organization’s opinion that whaling is an unnecessary, unsuccessful business is also an interesting point.

Kagawa-Fox, Midori. "Japan's Whaling Triangle - The Power Behind The Whaling Policy." Japanese Studies 29.3 (2009): 401-414. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Nov. 2011.

This author is from the University Of Australia and is writing on the debate surrounding Japan’s Whaling actions. Australia is primarily an anti-whaling country and so it is likely that this author has some bias. The whaling triangle that the author writes about refers to a close relationship between Japan’s government bureaucrats, politicians, and big businesses based around common interests. The text describes how each of these components of the triangle relates to whaling and how they are influential in gaining support from other pro-whaling countries. In order to write an exploratory paper on the issue I need to first understand how the issue became what it is today. The author goes into a lot of detail about the history of Japan in relation to whaling and that is very useful to me.

Miller, Andrew R., and Nives Dolšak. "Issue Linkages In International Environmental Policy: The International Whaling Commission And Japanese Development Aid." Global Environmental Politics 7.1 (2007): 69-96. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.

This article examines the relationship between Japan’s foreign aid to developing countries support for its whaling policy in the IWC. It states that whaling has no economic importance for Japan yet Japanese politicians are still willing to hurt the country’s reputation by bribing developing countries to favor their policy in the IWC. There is a positive association between Japanese foreign aid to developing countries and votes cast by these countries in the IWC. I would not use this article for its analysis of how countries are motivated by more than economic factors. Instead, I would use this article to show that Japan is a corrupt country that obtains support for its whaling policy through bribery.

Robert L. Brownell Jr., et al. "Whaling As Science." Bioscience 53.3 (2003): 210. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.

This article is a criticism of Japan’s scientific whaling program from the viewpoint of authors that are a part of the International Whaling Committee. They see the scientific whaling provision as being outdated. It was created when there were few alternatives to lethal sampling of whales, but now there are plenty. This outdated whaling provision has no limit for catches or and no method for calculating whale sample sizes. Japan is allowed by this provision to kill an unnecessary amount of whales without any justification. There is no evidence to show that Japan’s whaling research is successful and the authors of this article consider that a large problem. This article provides specific views of the IWC on Japan’s use of whaling as “science” and directly points out the current whaling provision’s flaws.

Simmonds, Mark, and Sue Fisher. "Save The Whales, Not The Whalers." New Scientist 205.2755 (2010): 22-23. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 Nov. 2011.

These authors both work for anti-whaling organizations and are therefore biased in their opinions to end whaling. This article does, however, have important facts and explains why the current solution that the IWC is proposing is not an effective one and explains why it could even be detrimental. This article states that the three whaling nations of Japan, Iceland, and Norway kill about 1600 whales a year. These authors believe that if the IWC suspends the moratorium it will embolden countries like South Korea that have the desire to resume whaling. They believe this proposal is a huge step backwards that basically legitimizes commercial whaling. The article says that Australia should take Japan to the International Court of Justice over Japan’s whaling in Australia’s whale sanctuary. These authors believe that there is hope of ending whaling in the current moratorium because public opinion on whaling is changing and the demand for whale meat is in decline. I will use both the facts and opinions given by these authors to base my policy paper off of.

Whaling Annotations

Kagawa-Fox, Midori. "Japan's Whaling Triangle - The Power Behind The Whaling Policy." Japanese Studies 29.3 (2009): 401-414. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Nov. 2011.

This author is from the University Of Australia and is writing on the debate surrounding Japan’s Whaling actions. Australia is primarily an anti-whaling country and so it is likely that this author has some bias. The whaling triangle that the author writes about refers to a close relationship between Japan’s government bureaucrats, politicians, and big businesses based around common interests. The text describes how each of these components of the triangle relates to whaling and how they are influential in gaining support from other pro-whaling countries. In order to write an exploratory paper on the issue I need to first understand how the issue became what it is today. The author goes into a lot of detail about the history of Japan in relation to whaling and that is very useful to me.

Hamazaki, Toshihide, and Dai Tanno. "Approval Of Whaling And Whaling-Related Beliefs: Public Opinion In Whaling And Nonwhaling Countries." Human Dimensions Of Wildlife 6.2 (2001): 131-144. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Nov. 2011.

The first author is a fish and wildlife researcher from New Mexico and the second author is in the department of economics and is from Japan. These authors together provide a look at whaling from a scientific and economic standpoint as well as provide views from different regions of the world. The research they performed was on the public opinion of whaling in both whaling and non-whaling countries. What they found was that approval of whaling was positively correlated with approval of consumption of whale meat. This means that countries that approve of whaling also approve of the consumption of whale meat. What is most interesting, however, is that they found in both whaling and non-whaling countries approval of whaling was not correlated with knowledge about population of whales. This shows that the public from both whaling and non-whaling countries are unaware of the danger of the extinction of whales. This information is useful to me because it shows that the citizens of Japan and Norway who support whaling are supporting something they know very little about. There may be a chance that if the public is informed about the dangers of whaling that they would no longer support it.

Topic Proposal Exploratory Essay

The issue I am going to be exploring is Japan’s whaling policy and its violations of the international whaling committee’s regulations. Japan uses whales as a source of tradition, food, research and money. The international community, however, feels that Japan’s killing of whales has become excessive and violates international and environmental regulations. Japan has been urged to comply and change its policy but no real punishments have been placed on the country. Countries such as Australia and the United States are in strong opposition to Japan’s policy as well as countless environmental groups. Norway is a pro-whaling country and therefore supports Japan’s policy. Japan has changed its policy numerous times to appear a responsible member of the international community but still continues to violate regulations. They are currently using most of the whales for “scientific research”.

 Scientists and environmental groups consider Japan’s use of whales for research unnecessary and consider it a disguise to hide the country’s economic motivations. Rebuen Ackerman, the Senior Executive Editor of the Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, believes that the United States has the ability to make Japan change its unjust whaling policy. He believes that if the U.S. imposes trade sanctions on Japan it may force the country to change. Japan defends its policy by insisting that whaling is necessary for scientific studies and management of whale stocks. The country also argues that anti-whaling countries misunderstand their motivations based on cultural differences. Amy L. Catalinac from Harvard University and Gerald Chan from Victoria University of Wellington wrote that Japan’s policy was not formed solely by the country’s personal desires or the desires of the IWC, but a mixture of both. They give evidence of the policy’s changes over time and how the need to remain a respected member of the world has greatly affected it. They give evidence for this by showing that Japan has moved more towards rule compliance than any other pro-whaling country.

My personal interest in the issue stems from my experience watching the Oscar-winning documentary “The Cove”. I was horrified by Japan’s excessive killing of dolphins and the lengths they went to in order to cover it up. Most of the citizens of Japan were completely unaware that this practice was taking place. I was introduced to the IWC (International Whaling Committee) at the end of the documentary and I was particularly confused about how they could stand in such strong opposition to Japan’s policy without enforcing any punishments. I strongly favor the need for a change in Japan’s whaling policy and I find it ridiculous that the international community has not done more to make this change happen. Japan’s policy is full of violations and I do believe that the country uses whaling primarily for its commercial value.