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

December 07, 2016
Michael Schwalbe
What We Talk About When We Talk About Class
Karl Grossman
The Next Frontier: Trump and Space Weapons
Kenneth Surin
On Being Caught Speeding in Rural America
Chris Floyd
In Like Flynn: Blowback for Filth-Peddling Fascists
Serge Halimi
Trump, the Know-Nothing Victor
Paul DeRienzo
Flynn Flam: Neocon Ex-General to Be Trump’s National Security Advisor
Binoy Kampmark
Troubled Waters: Trump, Taiwan and Beijing
Tom Clifford
Trump and China: a Note From Beijing
Arnold August
Fidel’s Legacy to the World on Theory and Practice
Dave Lindorff
Is Trump’s Idea To Fix a ‘Rigged System’ by Appointing Crooks Who’ve Played It?
John Kirk
Cuba After Fidel
Jess Guh
Repeal of Affordable Care Act is Politics Playing with the Wellbeing of Americans
Eric Sommer
Team Trump: a Government of Generals and Billionaires
Lawrence Davidson
U.S. Reactions to the Death of Fidel Castro
John Garvey - Noel Ignatiev
Abolitionism: a Study Guide
Clancy Sigal
Caution: Conspiracy Theory Ahead!
December 06, 2016
Anthony DiMaggio
Post-Fact Politics: Reviewing the History of Fake News and Propaganda
Richard Moser
Standing Rock: Challenge to the Establishment, School for the Social Movements
Behrooz Ghamari Tabrizi
Warmongering 99 – Common Sense 0: the Senate’s Unanimous Renewable of Iran Sanctions Act
Norman Solomon
Media Complicity is Key to Blacklisting Websites
Michael J. Sainato
Elizabeth Warren’s Shameful Exploitation of Standing Rock Victory
David Rosen
State Power and Terror: From Wounded Knee to Standing Rock
Kim Ives
Deconstructing Another Right-Wing Victory in Haiti
Nile Bowie
South Korea’s Presidency On A Knife-Edge
Mateo Pimentel
Some Notes and a Song for Standing Rock
CJ Hopkins
Manufacturing Normality
Bill Fletcher Jr – Bob Wing
Fighting Back Against the White Revolt of 2016
Peter Lee
Is America Ready for a War on White Privilege?
Pepe Escobar
The Rules of the (Trump) Game
W. T. Whitney
No Peace Yet in Colombia Despite War’s End
Mark Weisbrot
Castro Was Right About US Policy in Latin America
David Swanson
New Rogue Anti-Russia Committee Created in “Intelligence” Act
George Ochenski
Forests of the Future: Local or National Control?
December 05, 2016
Bill Martin
Stalingrad at Standing Rock?
Mark A. Lause
Recounting a Presidential Election: the Backstory
Mel Goodman
Mad Dog Mattis and Trump’s “Seven Days in May”
Matthew Hannah
Standing Rock and the Ideology of Oppressors: Conversations with a Morton County Commissioner
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
#NoDAPL Scores Major Victory: No Final Permit For Pipeline
Fran Shor
The End of the Indispensable Nation
Michael Yates
Vietnam: the War That Won’t Go Away
Michael Uhl
Notes on a Trip to Cuba
Robert Hunziker
Huge Antarctica Glacier in Serious Trouble
John Steppling
Screen Life
David Macaray
Trump vs. America’s Labor Unions
Yoav Litvin
Break Free and Lead, or Resign: a Letter to Bernie Sanders
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail