FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

No Repeal of Whaling Ban

by ANTHONY DiMAGGIO

A five-day International Whaling Commission conference in Morocco failed to produce an agreement that would authorize hunting whales in national and international waters.  Anti-whaling countries were defiant in their opposition to initiatives aimed at legitimizing whale hunting in the name of “conservation.”  Whaling has been banned internationally for 24 years, but this did not stop countries like Japan, Norway, and Iceland from defying the ban – by claiming various loopholes to and exemptions from the 1986 ban.

Pro-whaling states decided to give up on pushing for a repeal of the ban in the Morocco meeting in light of resistance from the European Union and Latin American countries, among many others.  The repeal was originally promoted by the United States, with Obama breaking a campaign promise that he would support the whaling ban if elected.  The failure to break the ban was the subject of stern lectures by U.S. newspapers, whose reporters claimed that the attempted repeal of whaling prohibition was in reality an effort to protect whales.  The New York Times, for example, reported that the failure to repeal the whaling ban will “leave management of whale populations in the hands of hunters.  A compromise plan…would have allowed the three countries (Norway, Iceland, and Japan) to resume commercial whaling but at significantly lower levels and under tight monitoring.”  The Washington Post similarly reported that the failed repeal will effectively “leave management of the population of the world’s largest animals essentially in the hands of whale hunters.”

Reporting in the U.S. press is starkly contrasted to that in Britain, where the Independent of London summarized that the failure to repeal the ban is a “victory for anti-whaling campaigners…the controversial attempt to scrap the 24 year old international moratorium in commercial whaling collapsed…to the frustration of Japan, Norway, and Iceland, the three countries which continue to hunt whales in defiance of world opinion.”

Reporters at the New York Times and Washington Post have relied on false portrayals of the Morocco meeting and the whaling ban on multiple levels.  Both papers failed to report on the scientific findings, discovered by researchers at Stanford and Harvard University, and reported in the journal Science, that global humpback and great whale populations “are too low to resume commercial hunting.”  Both papers also inaccurately suggest that Japan, Norway, and Iceland are reliant upon a new international agreement in order to set a lower quota for whale hunting, or end hunting altogether.  The claim that the failure to repeal the ban leaves control over whaling “in the hands of whale hunters” is inaccurate.  The 1986 whaling ban passed by the International Whaling Commission relies upon voluntary compliance of supporting states for its implementation.  In reality, then, there is nothing to currently stop whaling countries from reducing their hunting at any time.  The International Whaling Commission retains no authority to either reward or punish countries that enforce or violate the ban.

Contrary to the claims of pro-whaling countries, the attempt to repeal the ban has nothing to do with each state’s ability to reduce whaling quotas or end whaling altogether.  Repealing the ban is meant simply to provide pro-whaling countries with the international legitimacy they desire in light of the decline of whale populations.  As is well understood throughout the world, the 1986 ban merely cemented the earlier 1966 global whaling moratorium to end the hunting in light of dwindling whale populations and the entrance of numerous species onto the endangered species list.  Significantly, whaling catches had fell to well below ten thousand a year by 1985 from a high of 70,000 a year in the 1960s.

This downward trend in killings following the 1966 and 1986 bans, however, was marginalized by the New York Times when it recently reported that “more than 33,000 whales have been killed since the ban took effect in 1986, undermining the [International Whaling] commission in the eyes of critics.”

A repeal on the whaling ban will likely lead to a tremendous increase in whaling, not a reduction or “controlled” hunting.  Businesses within countries currently restricted by the ban would be free to engage in whaling, causing an expansion in the number of hunters and markets reliant upon whaling.  This reality should be remembered when one reflects upon the motivations of officials in Japan, Iceland, Norway, and the United States.  Norway’s “quotas” for whale hunters have steady increased from near zero in 1990 to nearly one thousand by 2010.  Whale hunting countries, then, have no intention of using a repeal to push for “conservation” or “moderation” in whaling.  They want to use it to provide cover for their increased reliance upon the whaling industry.

There is much to celebrate in the defeat of the whaling repeal.  Whaling countries have failed in their public relations attempts to provide cover for their unsustainable hunting.  At a time when scientists are discussing dwindling whale populations, pro-whaling countries should not be allowed to deceive and manipulate the global public.  The justifications offered for the repeal were rightly rejected throughout most of the world, and this represents a major victory – not a defeat – for conservation.

ANTHONY DiMAGGIO is the editor of media-ocracy. He is the author of Mass Media, Mass Propaganda (2008) and When Media Goes to War . He can be reached at: mediaocracy@gmail.com

 

 

WORDS THAT STICK

 

Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2015). He can be reached at: anthonydimaggio612@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

May 23, 2017
John Wight
Manchester Attacks: What Price Hypocrisy?
Patrick Cockburn
A Gathering of Autocrats: Trump Puts US on Sunni Muslim Side of Bitter Sectarian War with Shias
Shamus Cooke
Can Trump Salvage His Presidency in Syria’s War?
Thomas S. Harrington
“Risk”: a Sad Comedown for Laura Poitras
Josh White
Towards the Corbyn Doctrine
Mike Whitney
Rosenstein and Mueller: the Regime Change Tag-Team
Jan Oberg
Trump in Riyadh: an Arab NATO Against Syria and Iran
Susan Babbitt
The Most Dangerous Spy You’ve Never Heard Of: Ana Belén Montes
Rannie Amiri
Al-Awamiya: City of Resistance
Dimitris Konstantakopoulos
The European Left and the Greek Tragedy
Laura Leigh
This Land is Your Land, Except If You’re a Wild Horse Advocate
Hervé Kempf
Macron, Old World President
Michael J. Sainato
Devos Takes Out Her Hatchet
L. Ali Khan
I’m a Human and I’m a Cartoon
May 22, 2017
Diana Johnstone
All Power to the Banks! The Winners-Take-All Regime of Emmanuel Macron
Robert Fisk
Hypocrisy and Condescension: Trump’s Speech to the Middle East
John Grant
Jeff Sessions, Jesus Christ and the Return of Reefer Madness
Nozomi Hayase
Trump and the Resurgence of Colonial Racism
Rev. William Alberts
The Normalizing of Authoritarianism in America
Frank Stricker
Getting Full Employment: the Fake Way and the Right Way 
Jamie Davidson
Red Terror: Anti-Corbynism and Double Standards
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange, Sweden, and Continuing Battles
Robert Jensen
Beyond Liberal Pieties: the Radical Challenge for Journalism
Patrick Cockburn
Trump’s Extravagant Saudi Trip Distracts from His Crisis at Home
Angie Beeman
Gig Economy or Odd Jobs: What May Seem Trendy to Privileged City Dwellers and Suburbanites is as Old as Poverty
Colin Todhunter
The Public Or The Agrochemical Industry: Who Does The European Chemicals Agency Serve?
Jerrod A. Laber
Somalia’s Worsening Drought: Blowback From US Policy
Michael J. Sainato
Police Claimed Black Man Who Died in Custody Was Faking It
Clancy Sigal
I’m a Trump Guy, So What?
Gerry Condon
In Defense of Tulsi Gabbard
Weekend Edition
May 19, 2017
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Getting Assange: the Untold Story
Jeffrey St. Clair
The Secret Sharer
Charles Pierson
Trump’s First Hundred Days of War Crimes
Paul Street
How Russia Became “Our Adversary” Again
Andrew Levine
Legitimation Crises
Mike Whitney
Seth Rich, Craig Murray and the Sinister Stewards of the National Security State 
Robert Hunziker
Early-Stage Antarctica Death Rattle Sparks NY Times Journalists Trip
Ken Levy
Why – How – Do They Still Love Trump?
Bruce E. Levine
“Hegemony How-To”: Rethinking Activism and Embracing Power
Robert Fisk
The Real Aim of Trump’s Trip to Saudi Arabia
Christiane Saliba
Slavery Now: Migrant Labor in the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia
Chris Gilbert
The Chávez Hypothesis: Vicissitudes of a Strategic Project
Howard Lisnoff
Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain
Brian Cloughley
Propaganda Feeds Fear and Loathing
Stephen Cooper
Is Alabama Hiding Evidence It Tortured Two of Its Citizens?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail