Editorial: Dispute not worth a human life

If anything ought to disturb the Prime Minister's holiday at present it is the escapades of whaling opponents who are trying to stop a Japanese whale slaughter in the Southern Ocean. The confrontation seems to be getting more violent by the day. It could turn disastrous at any moment. The Japanese Government's Fisheries Agency is said to be considering a request to Australia for some sort of intervention. Failing that, it might call on Japan's Maritime Police Agency to put armed aircraft over its vessels. Meanwhile, the New Zealand Government is being urged by the Green Party to send a frigate to the area.

Duty minister Phil Goff has quickly rejected the Greens' suggestion but he must be giving considerable thought to what the Government could do, and ought to be consulting senior colleagues about a situation that could turn very nasty indeed. It is foolish enough for Greenpeace members to scoot about in inflatables painting slogans on the sides of ships, getting in the way of harpoons and enduring the sting of cold water from the high pressure hoses turned on them. But it is quite another thing for ships to be rammed, damaged and deliberately disabled in Antarctic seas.

One of the protest boats sports a prong on its side that it calls a can-opener. Though the device might not be capable of piercing the thickest hull above the waterline, that is its intention. The pronged ship is operated by a United States-based group, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, whose methods make Greenpeace seem tame. Its skipper declares himself entitled to sideswipe whaling vessels because he regards the Southern Ocean Whaling Sanctuary as a creation of law that he will enforce if governments will not.

It is tempting to leave such arrogance to whatever fate may be in store for it. But humanity dictates otherwise. If lives look likely to be lost, even from the folly of those endangered, the nearest responsible authorities should do whatever they can to prevent a tragedy. The Australian and New Zealand Governments, preferably together, should be giving serious consideration to some sort of intervention. But it is easier to say that than to suggest what sort.

Long-range patrol aircraft would be easiest but of less value if people need to be rescued quickly from icy water. A naval presence would be more effective in that eventuality, but also more problematic from a political point of view. The protest groups would like nothing more than to see warships on the scene. They believe the navies of signatory nations should have been defending the sanctuary from the whaling in the first place. Should a frigate arrive now, the protesters would almost certainly try to draw it into confrontation with the whalers. Thus the Navy's mere presence could heighten the level of provocation rather reduce it. At the very least it might embolden the protest groups to act with even less regard for the safety of themselves and the whaling crews.

However, those considerations will seem trifling if the worst happens and lives are lost. Questions would properly be asked of governments who grandly declared their part of the world to be a whale sanctuary but were nowhere to be seen when impassioned supporters of the sanctuary risked their lives in the cause.

The Government ought now to ensure the Air Force's Orions are making regular observations of the area and are capable of responding quickly in the event of an emergency. If air and sea monitoring operations can be co-ordinated with the Japanese Maritime Police Agency, so much the better. It would demonstrate to all concerned that the whaling dispute is not a war. It is a conflict of interests and values that the International Whaling Commission has been set up to handle. The argument is not worth a risk to human life.