Interpol Giving Eco-Terrorist Paul Watson a Free Pass
Headquartered in France, the International Criminal Police Organization, or Interpol, recently lifted its international arrest warrant for Paul Watson. He is the founder of the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd.
Sea Shepherd is a lawless group that has repeatedly engaged in dangerous acts of obstruction, such as ramming small boats into whaling ships from Japan and other countries. Watson is the man directing these operations. Therefore, the Japan Coast Guard had issued an arrest warrant for Watson on suspicion of assault and other offenses. That in turn led to Watson being placed on Interpol's Red Notice international wanted list.
Interpol's scrapping of the warrant leaves a dangerous activist free to do as he pleases and is also extremely unacceptable. The Red Notice extradition request should be reissued immediately. Tokyo must also strongly protest to Interpol and demand that it act. Meanwhile, all possible measures must be taken to detain the suspect.
Regarding its lifting of the arrest warrant, Interpol offered the following explanation: "This decision was not based on a judgment on the facts in the case, but on the new fact that Denmark had refused to extradite him to Japan."
Such an explanation is bizarre. What matters here are the "facts in the case."
Watson was allegedly intimately involved in the 2010 incident where Sea Shepherd members attacked a Japanese research whaling vessel operating in the Antarctic Ocean. That incident resulted in multiple injuries. It is only right that Watson should be brought to justice. A Sea Shepherd vessel rams a Japanese scientific whaling ship in the icy Antarctic ocean. (© ICR)
Watson was arrested by local police in July of 2024. At the time, the "eco-pirate" had stopped in the Danish-administered territory of Greenland en route to disrupt a Japanese whaling fleet in the North Pacific. Japan thereafter requested his immediate extradition.
However, French President Emmanuel Macron and leaders in other countries opposed to commercial whaling opposed the request. Thereafter, Denmark released Watson in December.
Watson has been exiled in France. After his international arrest warrant was lifted, he posted on social media, "Finally, I'm free." There is grave concern that he will soon resume his illegal activities.
Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi told a press conference that Interpol's action was "extremely regrettable." There are also other indications that the Japanese authorities intend to continue their investigation. Japan Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Yoshio Seguchi told the press, "There is no change to our policy of requesting the relevant countries to extradite him."
As with Interpol, the Danish and French governments' attitudes have definitely been problematic. Their choice to give a free pass to a lawless suspect rather than crack down on dangerous international crimes and maintain friendly relations with Japan calls into question their credentials as advanced democratic nations. We urge them to return to upholding law and justice.
Author: Editorial Board, The Sankei Shimbun
このページを 日本語 で読む
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
44 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Australia selects Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for $6.5B warship deal
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — Australia said Tuesday it accepted a Japanese company's bid for a lucrative and hotly contested contract to build Australian warships, expected to be worth 10 billion Australian dollars ($6.5 billion). Mitsubishi Heavy Industries' Mogami-class frigate won the deal over rival Germany's MEKO A-200 from Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems. Japan's government lobbied heavily for the deal after missing out on Australia's submarines contract to a French company in 2016. 'This is clearly the biggest defense industry agreement that will ever have been struck between Japan and Australia,' Defense Minister Richard Marles told reporters when he announced the deal Tuesday. 'In fact, it's really one of the biggest defense exports that Japan has ever engaged in.' The fleet of 11 naval vessels will replace Australia's ageing fleet of ANZAC-class ships. Three of the frigates will be built in Japan, with the first scheduled to be operational Australia in 2030, and the remaining eight due for construction in Australia. Australian news outlets reported that the German company's bid had emphasized their vessel's cheaper price and their greater experience building ships abroad. But Pat Conroy, Australia's Minister for Defense Industry, said the Mogami-class frigate was a 'clear winner' when assessed by 'cost, capability and meeting our schedule of delivery.' The vessels have a range of up to 10,000 nautical miles (18,520 kilometers) and 32 vertical launch cells capable of launching long-range missiles. The frigates can operate with a crew of 90, compared to the 170 needed to operate the ANZAC-class ships. Mitsubishi's win was a boon for Japan's defense industry, which has not built naval vessels abroad before. Japan, whose only treaty ally is the United States, considers Australia a semi-ally and has increasingly sought to deepen bilateral military cooperation amid ongoing regional tensions in the disputed South China Sea. 'We welcome the decision by the Australian government as a major step to further elevate Japan's national security cooperation with Australia, which is our special strategic partner,' Japan's Defense Minister Gen Nakatani said Tuesday. Nakatani said co-developing the frigate will allow the two countries to train and operate with the same equipment and further improve operability and efficiency. Japan set up a joint taskforce of government and industry in an effort to win the bid. Australian officials said work on a binding commercial contract with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and the government of Japan would now begin, with a finalized agreement expected in 2026. They did not say how much each ship would cost or confirm a total figure for the package, citing ongoing negotiations. But Conroy said the government had allowed AU$10 billion for the project over the next 10 years. It forms part of the AU$55 billion that Australia has budgeted for the navy's entire surface combatant fleet during the same period. —- Associated Press writer Mari Yamaguchi contributed from Tokyo.
Japan Forward
4 hours ago
- Japan Forward
Two Atomic Bombs by America Ended the Asia-Pacific War ー Was There a Third Option?
Every August 6, on the anniversary of the atomic bomb attack against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an argument is remade. It reasons that Harry Truman, president of the United States of America, had two choices to end the Asia-Pacific War. He could force a surrender through the use of nuclear weapons or proceed with an invasion of the Japanese home islands. According to the contention, the option of the atomic bomb attack was the better of the two. It was touted as quicker, with an ultimately lower death toll. This assertion is nonsense, and always has been. There were never two options ー there were three. The third was to do what 99.9% of generals, commanders and statesmen have done throughout the history of warfare: Drop the insistence of unconditional surrender and negotiate. In this year of 2025, the two-option argument is even more nonsensical than usual. There are ongoing wars for which the option of negotiation will inevitably prevail. They include the Israel-Iran War and the war between Russia and Ukraine. Satellite image showing the entrance to a tunnel destroyed in a US airstrike, at a nuclear facility in Isfahan, central Iran, on June 22. (provided by Maxar Technologies, Reuters via Kyodo) Inappropriate Comparisons Curiously, when it comes to Israel-Iran, US President Donald Trump has been doing his best to draw parallels with the Asia-Pacific War and its dual option narrative. On June 17 he announced that he sought the "unconditional surrender" of Iran. In the wake of the US bombing of the Iranian Fordo nuclear facility, he evoked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both the 1945 atomic bombs and his strike on Iran "ended the war," he proclaimed. It is possible that President Trump is trying to pull the rug out from underneath Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu by insisting that the problem of the Iranian nuclear program has been resolved and further military action is not required. A more likely scenario, however, is that he is attempting to magnify the scope of his achievement. In any event, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki parallel is ridiculous. Iran has not been militarily defeated (let alone forced to surrender unconditionally). Moreover, the failure of the US strike against the Iranian nuclear program makes negotiations even more certain. Inevitability of Negotiations Between Russia and Ukraine When it comes to the Russia-Ukraine War, differences between it and the Asia-Pacific War are undeniably stark. There will be no unconditional surrender from either of the combatants. That war has reached a stalemate and will end with a ceasefire, followed by a negotiated agreement. President Trump has famously attempted to effectuate such a deal. Some reports say he suggests allowing the Russians to keep most of what they occupy. Meanwhile, Ukraine gains a measure of security assuredness through the increased presence of American business interests. In particular, that would come within the mining sector. President Trump has portrayed Russian President Vladimir Putin as both reasonable and conciliatory. The initial aim of Putin was to wipe Ukraine off the map but he presently seems content to settle for the eastern regions that he presently holds. It is quite a compromise on the part of Putin, Trump has suggested. Trump has also focused on the loss of life extracted by the war, implying that loss of territory is preferable to continued Ukrainian casualties. The Japan of 1945 was asking for considerably less than President Trump is prepared to concede to the Russians. And far more lives were in the balance. On the eve of the Hiroshima attack, the Japanese were merely seeking to preserve the integrity of the imperial system via assurances that the Emperor would not be put on trial. The Allies were also fully aware of this reality as they had broken the Japanese codes. Yet, the demand for unconditional surrender was maintained. Atomic bombing of Hiroshima (©US Army via Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, HO) The Belligerent Mindset of Unconditional Surrender Unconditional surrender is a rarely exercised option, not a default setting. Having demanded unconditional surrender, a belligerent power does not acquire justification in resorting to war crimes when the price of total victory becomes too steep. Moreover, perceived or real, the war crimes of one's adversary do not legitimize one's own. Many nonetheless claim that the Japanese militarist regime was so abhorrent that the ends justify the means. Even when those means constitute an unconditional surrender obtained via nuclear attack. This is an argument that could perhaps be made by an Asian whose country had been subjected to colonization. When forwarded by a member of the West, as it generally is, a measure of ignorance or hypocrisy is more than often present. There are two ways of interpreting the Asia-Pacific War. The first is as a war between Asia in tandem with the West, against the Japanese aggressor. The second is as an imperial war for control over imperial possessions, conducted by combatants universally devoid of clean hands. Unsurprisingly, the West prefers the first of these scenarios. The second scenario is accurate. In earlier articles for JAPAN Forward, I have suggested that those prepared to justify the nuclear attacks on the basis of their success in comprehensively destroying the culture of Japanese imperialism should also recognize the impact of Japan in bringing down the ethos that buttressed the Western imperial presence in Asia. The Western empires, the British Empire in particular, were sustained by the myth of white supremacy. The ritualized humiliation that the Japanese wrought upon the white imperialists captured in Asia destroyed this myth, and brought forward the timetable for Asian self-determination by a generation at least. A Clean Break with the Past A case could further be made that it was precipitous for Japan to lose its empire at a stroke. Under that perception, it was bad both for the colonized people of Asia and for Japan itself. Asia was not freed by the fall of Japan. Subhas Chandra Bosesits in the distinguished visitor's box of the Japanese parliament listening to Japanese Prime Minister Tojo declare support for Indian Independence, 16th June 1943. (©Netaji Museum and Centre for Studies in Himalayan Languages Society & Culture, Giddha Pahar, Darjeeling district, West Bengal) Following surrender, the Western colonial powers attempted reassert control, often with the assistance of Japanese troops kept at arms. These efforts, however, were ultimately for nought. The carefully crafted myth of white superiority that had allowed so few to control so many was a casualty of the war. Colonial presence within high density Asia could not be reclaimed. The slow and painful colony disbursement that the Western powers endured over the next 30 years was an ordeal that the Japanese might be glad to have avoided. Complimentary Aims Arguments against the demand for unconditional surrender are just as strong. The most compelling can be found in the manner in which the US and Japan coordinated their aims after the Japanese surrender. One of the principal concerns of the Japanese throughout the 1920s and 30s was the direction in which China would ultimately go. Nineteenth-century exploitation by the imperial West had left the Chinese government impotent, leading to its fall in 1912. From 1912 until 1949, China was fractured. Two regimes emerged as potential unifying forces: the right wing Kuomintang (KMT) of Chiang Kai-shek, and the Communist Party under Mao Zedong. A scene from a painting of Chiang Kai-Shek in the Kinmen museum (©Robert D Eldridge) The Japanese were no less adamant than the United States of America that the Communists should not prevail. As with America, they sought to be the voice that a governing rightwing Chinese administration could not ignore. In short, America and Japan had the same fundamental aim when it came to China. They both sought to be the dominant influence over a ruling rightwing regime. Unsurprisingly, after Japan's surrender, the Japanese forces based within China eagerly cooperated with America by acting in the interests of the KMT. In occupied Japan itself, after a brief period, the US concluded that its fundamental aims and those of Japan within Asia were largely complementary. Many lives would have been saved if this reality had been acted upon prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Showa Emperor and General Douglas MacArthur. Japan's postwar constitution was drafted on General MacArthur's orders. Three Options, Not Two Arguments for and against the morality and merit of the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki exist in abundance and will continue to be advanced for generations to come. However, the US had more than a duality of options. It could have ended the war through negotiation - the manner in which the vast majority of wars are concluded. This is the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima attack. With negotiations inevitable in the Russia-Ukraine War, one hopes that the nonsense of the two-option argument has finally become clear. Moving forward, that debate should be directed towards the legitimate arguments that exist — both for and against those attacks. RELATED: Author: Paul de Vries Find other reviews and articles by the author on Asia Pacific history on JAPAN Forward.
Toronto Star
5 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Japan's aging atomic bomb survivors speak out against nuclear weapons
HIROSHIMA, Japan (AP) — Eighty years after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a dwindling number of the aging Japanese survivors are increasingly frustrated by growing nuclear threats and the acceptance of nuclear weapons by global leaders. The U.S. attack on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and three days later on Nagasaki killed more than 200,000 people by the end of that year. Others survived but with radiation illness.
