Error message

Deprecated function: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in menu_set_active_trail() (line 2405 of /home/hulijedw/public_html/includes/

Capt. Paul Watson might be in Ecuador, as Interpol sees 'red'

Paula Duffy's picture

While Interpol hasn't issued an arrest warrant for Capt. Paul Watson it has doubled down on Costa Rica's warrant and extradition request, considered politically motivated by Sea Shepherd.

Whale Wars is between seasons on Animal Planet and its star, Captain Paul Watson has had one heck of a hiatus. Sea Shepherd's founder and President is on the run as a hunted man.

The Costa Rica criminal charges against Capt. Watson are ten years old but while in Germany, on his way elsewhere, he was arrested and held for extradition. Read: Capt. Paul Watson's arrest unjust.

Interpol's red warning came after a renewed request by the government of Costa Rica, which Sea Shepherd says is based on "bogus charges."

Paul Watson jumped bail and departed Germany in late July and his whereabouts are the subject of some speculation. His disappearance and manhunt have garnered international attention.

Voice of Russia radio's news site reported he likely found shelter in Ecuador "Although Watson’s whereabouts are unknown, he has reportedly established ties with Ecuadorian eco-activists. Ecuadorian environmentalists have demanded that Germany explain itself before the European Parliament."

A sympathetic Russian environmentalist who participated in Watson's 2010 operation that resulted in damage to a Japanese ship believes that Paul Watson is his own worst enemy when it comes to garnering support.

“He is a persona non grata, barred from any talks with politicians. Instead, he engages in extremist, pirate-style missions, which are intrinsically illicit," explains Maria Vorontsova – the head of International Fund for Animal Welfare’s center in Moscow to Voice of Russia.

"He would come to a city where a whaling meeting is underway but he’s never let in to it," Vorontsova continued. "I've seen him many times rallying outside conference halls with his group. He’s usually dressed up in his captain uniform and a cap. He’s very impressive.”

Sea Shepherd posted a news update on its site decrying the latest attempt to paint Paul Watson as a criminal.

"In a highly unusual move, the Interpol notice ties Sea Shepherd to Captain Watson in its documentation. Legal counsel for Sea Shepherd states this is proof the falsified charges and Costa Rican warrant are politically motivated and the result of collusion between Costa Rica and Japan."

Watson's detractors include a writer on a site called Calling him a "eco-terrorist" and Osama bin Watson the writer said, "Apparently, Captain Watson is boasting that he “is traveling freely.” He even hinted that the Australian government would help him if indeed he would ever jump bail."

Japan jumped into the fray after Costa Rica and has sought to have its warrant take precedence. Sea Shepherd doesn't think highly of that maneuver. Read: Paul Watson on the run without a passport.

"Costa Rica has been acting as a puppet for Japan throughout this case and we expect that to continue. Japan is driving this effort in retaliation for our successful campaigns to stop them from whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. and points to it as proof that the Costa Rican charges are trumped up."

Where in the world is Captain Paul Watson?

You can find other stories on Watson and Whale Wars here on Huliq, or posted on my Twitter page at: Image: Wikimedia


Submitted by World Citizen (not verified) on
Paula, The fund for Animals are not impressed with Sea shepherd for the simple reason that Sea Shepherd make other environmental groups look hypocritical and ineffective. While groups talk about ending whaling, Sea Shepherd go out and actually do it. They do not cause injury to anyone, and they only intervene against illegal poaching activities. You will notice that the Fund For Animals will not be sending any ships or activists down to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary this year, to intervene with illegal Japanese activities in Australian Territory. They never have and they never will. What they and Greenpeace will do however, is take donors money and claim to be protecting the whales. They will then regard any other organization who DOES actually protect whales as 'extremist.' The 2010 Sea Shepherd campaign to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary has been documented in the Animal Planet series Whale Wars. In this, you will see the deliberate ramming of the Sea Shepherd vessel The Ady Gill by a Japanese poaching vessel. The Japanese whaling fleet was inside the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary at the time and had been targeting endangered whales, including pregnant endangered females and calves, in violation of international and Australian national law. I hope these facts clear a few things up for you. May I suggest that you do not cite The Dallas blog and Voice of Russia as your primary source material for an article in future.

Submitted by TexanMexican (not verified) on
Very well said. I completely agree. I'm from Texas and that blog is nothing but garbage. Paul Watson and the SSCS aren't the only things that that blog ridicules.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
In this upside down, loony toon world, its ok to kill extremely intelligent, socially complex creatures. "Yes that adds to the GDP. Good job". But if you actually try to stop them, with a bit of physical force but not injuring anyone, you are a "terrorist". If someone was skinning cats in you neighborhood, would you take action? Of course. But the criminals, through their powerful influence, somehow get people to believe the person protecting creatures is the villain. The corporate owned media thrives on the low brain power of the simple minded.

Submitted by Leonard Greene (not verified) on
If someone was skinning cats in you neighborhood, would you take action? Yes, because it is illegal, unlike whaling which isn't. The SSCS thrives on the low brain power of the simple minded, and their money.

Submitted by Leonard Greene (not verified) on
What a load of lies. Japanese whaling isn't illegal and thus not poaching. It is not Australian Territory. The Ady Gil was hit because it accelerated forward as their own helmsman admitted and as the electronic records the SSCS tried to destroy showed. No international laws are being broken by the Japanese (the SSCS is in violation of UNCLOS) and Australian law has no more applicability than Luxembourg. Minke whales aren't endangered. I hope these facts clear a few things up for you. May I suggest that you do not cite The SSCS and Paul Watson as your primary source material in the future.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on
The Japanese are whaling in the Antarctic Inetrnational Whale Sanctuary. It is only technically "legal" because they claim to be doing "reseach", which everyone knows they are not. If governments had the courage to stand up to the Japanese, they would state it was illegal. But they are afraid of offending a major trading partner. A simple ruse to get around breaking the law. But Sea Shepherd calls a spade a spade. They know it is criminal activity by the Japanese. They have the courage to act, to enforce the law while all nations look the other way, as cowards. This is all so obvious and iit is tragic that you would think the media spin put out by the Japanese and others was accurate. Think for yourself! Gather the facts!

Submitted by Leonard Greene (not verified) on
Think for yourself. Gather the facts. Try reading the actual treaties and laws involved and not the propaganda by EITHER side. The Japanese can lie about what the treaties say and the SSCS can lie about what the treaties say. But this amazing thing called the Internet allows you to read what the treaties actually say with no spin by either side. The whaling is 'technically' legal because it meets the requirements of the treaty. The research is real because anyone can see it in the scientific journals that publish it, such prestigious publications as Nature. Now try using a little logic, if 'they are afraid of offending a major trading partner' why would they have passed the moratorium? If 'they are afraid of offending a major trading partner' why would the US blackmail the Japanese to sign the moratorium? If 'they are afraid of offending a major trading partner' why would Australia and New Zealand and the Netherlands and the US all ignore requests by Japan to reign in the SSCS? I know cult members have trouble with logic, but at least try.

Submitted by JB (not verified) on
What Paul Watson has done is make me aware that there are two sides to this story. You imply that the purpose of collecting the whales is for scientific research. Before Watson allowed filming of Whale Wars, I was not aware of the situation in the slightest. I am a bit shocked at the number of whales collected by the Japanese fleets but you are implying that the large numbers are in some way due to the scientific research. A quick scan of internet resources seems to reveal a long history of Japan ignoring international science opinion and even possible bribing of international officials (see Wikipedia). Can you cite the papers that are being published, so that I, as a scientist, can come to my own conclusions? I am very much for upholding the rule of law, but if these papers do not lead me to the conclusion that there is an actual scientific motive behind the capture of these whales, then I will be lead to the conclusion that Paul Watson is correct in his reasoning and motivation. Thus I would be forced to conclude his tactics, while seemingly reprehensible on the surface, would be very much reasonable due to the ineffective protection of the species through international cooperation. If the Japanese whalers are not actually conducting scientific research, then they should be internationally condemned (as Ronald Reagan did) for the harvest and thus sanctions by other countries to prevent them from ever sailing a vessel in pursuit of whales. Paul Watson would have no show. Show me the valuable research that would allow me to condemn Paul Watson instead.

Submitted by Leonard Greene (not verified) on
So you are a scientist and yet you cite Wikipedia as a source? And your quick scan of the internet didn't include the website of the Japanese research institute where a list of the papers exists? Well, that brings into question your sincerity and neutrality. And if you where completely unaware of the situation I wonder if your background is appropriate to make a scientific call on the research. But giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Submitted by JB (not verified) on
Whale Wars is a propaganda delivery vehicle loaded with one sided subjective opinions. Almost everything you read online is a non-peer reviewed subjective opinion, and the Wikipedia articles should be considered as such until one verifies any references they cite. As a concerned world citizen, I can most certainly cite differing propaganda pieces and opinions as they are all vying to sway my own opinion. It is the Japanese ICR that are attempting to refute any arguments with the claim that the number of whales are required for "scientific research". The burden of scientific proof lies with ICR, not with me or anyone else. If they believe that these words will sway my opinion as a scientist, then I require at least one peer reviewed paper that has been published long ago enough to also allow for publication of refutations. If ICR cannot actually produce a paper that is acceptable enough to convince the applicable research community to allow for the high slaughter numbers (I don't see that subject within the document list, can you point it out?), then why should the ICR expect the international community at large to care if their "research" vessels are left dead in the water? Why not just leave the carcasses in the water? Why not give the meat away for free? There seems to be no awareness of ethics in this "research". Normally if one breaks the law, even vigilantes such as the Sea Shepards are punished. As there does not seem to be any enforceable law in this international maritime sanctuary, bogus claims to scientific research leaves me ambivalent of the repercussions for the whaling fleet.


Add new comment