Monday, October 14, 2013
Thursday, February 2, 2012
On the 51st day of my hunger strike against Japan’s armed aggression in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary the San Diego Police came to my room. At that point I was near death’s door. The police told me that as soon as I became helpless they would take me against my will to a mental institution where I would be force-fed. Thus the fast would end and I stigmatized as mentally incompetent. The policy is that one can present a rational case for a hunger strike and follow it through until one inevitably becomes weak and dazed. Then one is coercively discredited. That defeats the purpose. Therefore I had to stop and go to the hospital to recover.
This happened because several friends had intervened by contacting the police. They put their emotional need to ‘rescue’ me above respect for my willingness to accept the consequences of an existential choice. They chose to override my fundamental principles, clearly expressed from the beginning. Death comes to all. I chose to accept a meaningful death, if necessary, for a higher purpose. So have many others throughout history. That is the most personal decision anyone can make. I gave a rational explanation for my action. Others did not have the right to negate it and the cause for which I suffered. They saved my life. In doing so they chose to cancel out its meaning.
However, a miracle occurred. Veteran environmental activist Michael Bailey had contacted Mike Lee, a reporter, about my hunger strike. Mr. Lee interviewed me in my room on the 49th day of the fast. While the intervention and my hospitalization occurred he conducted an investigation into my background and contacted other sources. In hospital he did a second interview with me. The San Diego Union Tribune published his article, available at:
Thus I escaped both death and the far worse fate of having my protest negated. Beyond the drama of personal conscience v. group feelings, individual commitment to a higher purpose v. a collective consensus that life outranks principle, stands the larger reason for this episode.
Our planet stands on the brink of an ecological catastrophe. This can only be avoided by a cooperative world order in which special interests are subordinated to the common good through the process of international law. Yet Japan is now challenging the very concept of international law. It has sent an armed escort vessel to guard its gigantic whale processing ship from nonviolent activists blocking its illegal activity in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. The threat of deadly force in support of a criminal enterprise constitutes armed aggression.
The purpose of my hunger strike was to draw attention to this aggression. The Union Tribune article helped to do so. Now the world community should act to assert the rule of law.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
I am now in the 42nd day of a hunger strike against Japan’s attempt to violently assert jurisdiction over the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Japan has deployed an armed Fisheries Agency patrol vessel to suppress nonviolent activists defending the Sanctuary from illegal whaling. It is escorting the giant whale processing ship, which has so far evaded the Sea Shepherd activists. Soon they will meet in a moment of truth. Japan’s threat of deadly force in support of this criminal enterprise constitutes armed aggression.
I have explained the reasons for this hunger strike in a series of press releases posted on: http://tomfalvey.blogspot.com/ Scroll down past ‘A Personal Statement’ to read them.
This fast has finally accrued enough time to be a credible protest. Its drastic nature reflects the seriousness of Japan’s challenge to international law. I will continue until Japan withdraws its gunboat from the Sanctuary without engaging the Sea Shepherd activists.
Following is my original statement explaining the reasons for this hunger strike:
Following is my original statement explaining the reasons for this hunger strike:
The Japanese whaling fleet will soon arrive in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, off Antarctica. It pretends to be conducting scientific research there. The International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) scientific committee has rejected this cynical subterfuge several times. In 2007 the full IWC formally asked Japan to stop its lethal research (Resolution 2007-1, attached). Japan has said no.
For the 2011/12 season Japan has unilaterally decided to take 935 Minke and 50 Fin whales, in an ‘objection’ to IWC rules. A dead whale is worth about $200,000 on the meat market. This is actually a commercial operation, an industrial scale slaughter for profit.
Japan has also sent an armed Fisheries Agency patrol vessel to ‘protect’ this floating slaughterhouse from nonviolent activists defending the integrity of the Sanctuary. That is a breathtaking assertion of jurisdiction over the Southern Ocean, 6000 away. Its threat of deadly force in support of an illegal enterprise constitutes armed aggression.
Japan claims that its patrol vessel is there to ensure safety of navigation. This too is false. Whether one likes the Sea Shepherds or not, one fact is clear: in 30 years they have never caused a serious injury to the whalers or themselves. Their safety record is perfect. The real motive is to shut down these highly effective marine conservationists once and for all. To do so Japan will have to use violent tactics that put human life at risk and make injuries probable.
The possible use of armed force to suppress opposition in a protected conservation zone takes the whaling issue to a new level. This is no longer simply about the whales. It challenges the very concept of international law. Can one nation violently impose its will on the global commons in defiance of the recognized regulatory body (IWC)?
There are good reasons for the Sanctuary’s existence. The health of the oceans is vital to our planet’s overall ecology. Antarctica itself is a frigid, desolate ice sheet. The cold nutrient rich ocean surrounding it is spectacularly alive. Whales are its dominant life form. Yet most species have been hunted to the brink of extinction. Now Japan is going after the last and smallest survivors.
This issue also has an ethical dimension. All whales have bigger brains than ours, and some seem to be as complex. We cannot prejudge beings so high on the evolutionary scale as mere natural resources. Real scientists would wait to determine the truth about their intelligence before butchering them for food.
Another ethical aspect is whaling’s extreme cruelty. An exploding harpoon rarely kills outright. The wounded whale is winched to the killer ship’s side, stuck with a probe and electrocuted with thousands of volts. It often takes 15-20 minutes for the whale to finally drown. Such prolonged agony would not be tolerated in any slaughterhouse.
Few people care about the ecology of the remote Southern Ocean. Or the possibility of advanced consciousness in marine mammals. People do care about a stable world order governed by the rule of law.
In this case Japan has explicitly stated that it is exempt from the rule of law. It asserts the right to exploit the oceanic commons as it sees fit, regardless of others’ interests. And to physically eliminate anyone who stands in its way. That’s why it has sent a gunboat in violation of the Antarctic Treaty and numerous other laws.
The United States, with many other nations, has long voiced opposition to Japan’s illegal whaling. However, it has tolerated some state sponsored poaching in the Sanctuary because Japan is a major creditor that finances much of our deficit. Now its military deployment presents a direct challenge. It cannot be evaded. The threat of deadly force in support of a criminal enterprise constitutes armed aggression on the high seas.
By sending an armed escort Japan has announced its willingness to kill over whaling. It has invested its national pride in a resort to violence. Japan has deliberately created a situation in which either it, or the world community, has to lose face. There can be no win/win outcome here. We must put the rule of law above the intense drive of a proud nation to have its way.
Japan is unique but not privileged. It cannot make its own rules and enforce them by violence. The oceans are not Japan’s for the taking.
Hunger Strike Against Aggression
Japan has sent its whaling fleet to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in defiance of international law. It has also sent an armed Fisheries Agency patrol vessel with them to suppress nonviolent activists upholding the law. The threat of deadly force in support of an illegal enterprise constitutes armed aggression.
I will fast until Japan withdraws its patrol vessel without engaging the Sea Shepherd activists.
About Tom Falvey
Tom Falvey, 62, is an environmental activist and writer from San Diego, Ca. He is not affiliated with any organization. He does not represent the Sea Shepherd activists. This is a personal statement of conscience.
You can contact Tom Falvey at:
Tel: (619) 618-5713
You can follow this hunger strike at:
About This Fast
A healthy person in comfortable surroundings can survive for at least 40, but not more than 60, days without food. I do not expect the public to take this fast seriously until I have entered that zone. Before that happens I hope that world governments will act to ensure that Japan does not resort to force. If they do not then I have started the clock.
The credibility of this protest depends on its sincerity. I will only drink water during this fast. If I fall unconscious, or into a coma, I refuse any feeding, even if death is imminent. If I develop any medical condition as a consequence, even a life threatening one, I refuse all treatment.
The only condition under which I will accept feeding or medical intervention is if Japan withdraws its patrol vessel from the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary without engaging the Sea Shepherd activists.
International Whaling Commission – Resolution 2007-1
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has instructed Japan to stop killing whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary
As stated in Resolution 2007-1 below:
RECALLING that the Commission has repeatedly requested Contracting Parties to refrain from issuing special permits for research involving the killing of whales within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, has expressed deep concern at continuing lethal research within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, and has also recommended that scientific research involving the killing of cetaceans should only be permitted where critically important research needs are addressed;
the IWC is:
CONVINCED that the aims of JARPA II do not address critically important research needs;
FURTHER CALLS UPON the Government of Japan to suspend indefinitely the lethal aspects of JARPA II conducted within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
Resolution 2007-1 (RESOLUTION ON JARPA) is located on the IWC's website at:
The IWC established the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in 1994
JARPA = Japanese Whale Research Program Under Special Permit in the Antarctic
This permit is issued by Japan to Japan.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
I am now in the 26th day of a hunger strike protesting Japan’s deployment of an armed escort with its whaling fleet. The purpose is to suppress nonviolent activists defending the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. I have explained the reasons for this fast in a series of blogs posted on: http://tomfalvey.blogspot.com/
There is little left to say. Now action must speak louder than words.
A number of people have raised legitimate concerns about this tactic. They deserve a response:
The Sea Shepherds themselves oppose my hunger strike as ineffectual and too extreme. They have asked me to stop. I respect their stance. In fact I agree with it from their perspective.
The Sea Shepherds are a life-affirming organization. They have never caused or sustained a serious injury in 34 years, while shutting down numerous pirate whaling and other illegal operations. They do not protest. They nonviolently enforce marine conservation laws when governments fail to do so. Their goal is to protect whales and other endangered species. I have tremendous respect for them and their achievements.
My action has a different nature and purpose. I am protesting Japan’s military intrusion into a whale sanctuary. Japan has sent an armed Fisheries Agency patrol vessel to protect its illegal whaling from any interference. It is inconceivable that they will stand by and do nothing while the Sea Shepherds block their operation. The threat of deadly force in support of a criminal enterprise constitutes armed aggression. All I can do is offer my life to stop such aggression - as have so many before me.
Several specific comments require an answer:
1. You can do more for the whales alive than dead:
This is not about saving the whales. The Sea Shepherds are doing that. I am protesting Japan’s possible resort to force in an international conservation zone. If Japan is willing to kill then I am willing to die.
2. You are committing violence against yourself:
Negative. Japan has deployed the capability to commit violence. I feel a duty to resist. Once the sword is drawn the issue defaults to a brutal contest of wills. Standing up to aggression does not constitute violence even if it has deadly consequences.
Are the protestors in Syria committing violence against themselves? They know that they may be gunned down in the streets. Yet they carry on because their cause is just.
3. Your hunger strike won’t work. You will die in vain:
In general I strongly oppose hunger strikes because it is unreasonable to expect that any government would change its national policy because of an individual’s protest. Thus I would never fast to save the whales, or Prisoners of Conscience tortured to death in some countries, or against any number of other horrors. This goes to a different level. It involves an assault on the very idea of international law. I have discussed the consequences in my previous blogs.
I do not seek to influence the Japanese government itself. It has already committed to violence. I hope to alert American, Australian and New Zealand public opinion to what is at stake in this remote polar ocean. And to encourage those governments to uphold the law. I have verbally made the case as best I can. Now this hunger strike seeks to emphasize the seriousness of Japan’s challenge to a cooperative world order. How others respond is up to them.
4. You are seeking martyrdom:
I do not want to go to heaven. We are each always and fully in the presence of God, or the Tao, if we could only realize it. To throw away the brief and precious gift of life in hopes of gaining ego-credits in some other dimension is absurd and disrespectful.
5. You have gone too far and become a danger to yourself. It is time for the nanny state to intervene with force-feeding:
What I am doing is completely legal. I have given a rational explanation for my action. This protest is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment.
I will gladly end this fast if Japan withdraws its gunboat without engaging the Sea Shepherd activists. If they don’t, and I eventually fall into a fatal coma, I refuse all feeding or medical treatment unless that condition is met.
A medical model of the human condition is already replacing a religious one. In future people who insist on abstract principles over healthy biological functioning may simply be medicated as delusional. Soft bio-medical coercion, along with genetic manipulation, will probably be the central issue for coming generations. For now the problem remains old-fashioned aggression. Our society still acknowledges my right to resist by choosing death before dishonor.
I want to live. But some things are worth dying for. If necessary I will join the countless individuals who have given their lives for two fundamental principles:
1. Armed aggression on the high seas is unacceptable.
2. The rule of law must prevail.
Monday, December 26, 2011
The Japanese whaling fleet is trying to evade the Sea Shepherd activists in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Things will come to a head when the Sea Shepherds finally encounter the the giant whale processing ship and its armed Fisheries Agency escort vessel. If Japan is going to resort to violence that will be the moment.
The American, Australian and New Zealand governments must act to prevent violence. If they don’t then they will share responsibility for any injuries or deaths that may occur.
If Australia and New Zealand refuse to protect an international conservation zone of which they are the natural guardians then they will walk away from this with their wings clipped, no longer masters in their own domain. If the United States abdicates its traditional commitment to uphold freedom of navigation then it will abandon a fundamental tenet it has upheld since the earliest days of the republic. We should not literally sell a basic principle in order to continue living beyond our means by dependence on Japanese loans. If the U.S. demonstrates fear by appeasing an aggressor it will lose standing. People instinctively despise weakness. Once you lose respect you lose everything. If these three nations abandon scores of their most idealistic citizens to armed assault in international waters then they will lose both international and self-respect.
If Japan overturns the Antarctic Treaty and extends its military jurisdiction over the Southern Ocean then it will mean the beginning of the end for a cooperative world order. Others will see that they too can grab what they want by force. In a shrinking world of diminishing resources only the rule of law protects us all from anarchy. Only effective international restraints on exploitation ensure long-term ecological stability. This is the test case of whether or not the world community will stand up for them in a serious confrontation. There’s a lot at stake right now in the Southern Ocean.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
The Japanese whaling fleet and its armed escort have almost reached the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. The illegal slaughter of whales, and possible killing of marine conservationists, is imminent.
For the first time in history, the U.S. government has declined to insist on freedom of the seas. Whether one likes them or not, the Sea Shepherds are a legal conservation organization upholding the law of the sea. Refusal to protect them from military attack in international waters means dereliction of duty and loss of standing. The closest nations, Australia and New Zealand, do not own Antarctica or its surrounding ocean. They do have a right to defend its integrity as trustees of a global natural inheritance. So far they have backed down from that responsibility. All of these governments seem to be intimidated by their entanglement in a web of debt to Japan.
However, nonprofit groups are paid to be outraged by ecological atrocities. Why have the big environmental organizations, with their millions of members and political clout, refused to speak out against Japan’s armed intrusion into a whale sanctuary?
Do they worry about ‘guilt’ by association with brave activists in peril upon the sea? Are they too ‘responsible’ to generate a public outcry that might lead to an ugly clash of wills between economic superpowers? Are they afraid of being blamed for cutting off access to more debt and thus bringing down the financial house of cards?
Japan will soon be poaching at gunpoint in a whale sanctuary. It openly intends to use force against nonviolent activists who literally get in its way. The environmental movement faces a moment of truth. It must either speak out against or acquiesce to violence. Silence implies consent.
The era of feel-good environmentalism is drawing to an end. A new normal of deadly confrontation over diminishing resources will dawn unless the world community demands respect for the law. This is the precedent-making test. Only the environmental movement has the motivation, organization and numbers to lead. Does it have the will?
I do not ask the environmental community to endorse the Sea Shepherds or their tactics. Only to speak out against Japan’s armed aggression on the high seas. And to demand that governments act effectively to stop it.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
The Japanese whaling fleet and its armed escort are now halfway to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
No government has publicly opposed this military takeover of an international conservation zone. The media have not covered Japan’s threat of deadly force in support of a criminal enterprise. Public opinion is not outraged because it doesn’t know what’s happening. The mainstream environmental movement remains silent. The Sea Shepherds, ‘the few, those happy few,’ who dare stand up to armed aggression at the end of the world seem to be on their own.
Japan is directly challenging the American, Australian and New Zealand governments. If the U.S. abandons nonviolent activists to armed assault in international waters it gives up its role as the ultimate guarantor of world order. Will it accept a diminished status and allow Japan to violently extend its jurisdiction over the Southern Ocean in return for a monthly payoff? Australia and New Zealand are natural guardians of the Sanctuary by virtue of geography and a high level of environmental consciousness. Yet they too remain passive despite Japan’s armed aggression in their backyard.
This is a serious political showdown. By sending an armed patrol vessel Japan has put its prestige on the line. It is inconceivable that they will stand by and do nothing while the activists shut down illegal whaling operations. Once the sword is drawn the issue defaults to a brutal contest of wills. Japan will surely stop buying, or start selling, U.S. Treasury bonds if the United States takes meaningful action to stop it. It won’t hesitate to bully its smaller trading partners, Australia and New Zealand. Will these countries submit to financial blackmail as a backup to armed aggression?
The possible takedown of marine conservationists in a remote polar ocean would mean that Australia and New Zealand accept the supremacy of Japanese law enforced at gunpoint over the Southern Ocean. And that the United States surrenders its traditional insistence on freedom of navigation. (The Sea Shepherds are a legal environmental organization entitled to such protection.) More fundamentally, it would undermine a cooperative world order based on the rule of law. And mean the loss of any restraint in our exploitation of the oceans.
The world community must act to ensure that Japan renounces the use of force against those who are upholding international law. The real stakes here are much higher than those of power and pride. If Japan gets away with this it kills any hope for effective ocean conservation. It, then others, will just grab what they want. The degradation of a vital planetary ecosystem will accelerate. We will all pay a heavy price. Is the world so intimidated by Japan’s economic clout that it will allow this to happen?