FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Beached in Chile

The International Whaling Commission has had its 60th meeting, this time in Santiago, Chile.  Proceedings have followed their traditional pattern; hostilities have been reasserted between pro-whaling parties and those reluctant to give any ground on the matter.  A delegate from Iceland has gone so far as to dismiss any humane interest in whales as conservational gibberish: this, he says is not a matter of the ‘survival of the cutest’.

It all started optimistically.  Some 24 nations agreed to broker a resolution between pro- and anti-whaling nations.  The Australian environment minister Peter Garrett, more known for his reptilian gyrations as the front man for rock band Midnight Oil than sound policy, was urging a change of emphasis.  The IWC had to move from mere regulation to solid, enlightened conservation of cetacean species.

In truth, that direction has been taken by the body for some time now, even if some members have been less than enthusiastic to admit it.  The five-year moratorium of 1986 has been extended, and still applies.  Some countries on the commission, headed by Brazil, have raised the issue of a Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, an arrangement that did not get sufficient numbers last year.

The scientific provisions of the IWC, considered by some to be ludicrous if not meaningless, have at least seen a reduction of whaling by Japan. About half as many whales are slaughtered each year than was the case before the moratorium of 1986 on commercial whaling.  This was threatened in 2005, when the Japanese made it clear that they were commencing a new phase of the whale for science program, otherwise known as the Japanese Whale Research Program in Antarctica (JARPA). JARPA-2 would lead to the slaughter of 935 minkes, 50 fin whales and 50 humpbacks from the seas around Antarctica.

This spike in numbers then caused concern at the IWC meeting in Ulsan, South Korea that year.  The first JARPA programme had an annual catch of 440 minke whales.  The revised number came unnervingly close to the annual commercial quotas in place for Antarctic minke whales prior to the moratorium.  Scientific advisors were angered – the Japanese had failed to await the results of a close examination of the first JARPA program before proceeding with the second.  A resolution, proposed by Australia, suggested that Japan either withdraw its policy or adopt non-lethal methods in attaining scientific data from whales.  It just passed – 30 votes to 27.  An indignant Japan had no desire heeding the vote.

The Japanese continued to insist at Santiago that their science is not the stuff of fantasy, a contrivance designed to back commerce over preservation.  The Institute of Cetacean Research, established in 1987 to counter the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling, has done more than anything else to bolster an obsolete, or at the very least, questionable science.

Figures are produced from time to time suggesting sustainable, if not growing numbers in whale stocks.   In the politics of whaling, numbers are relative: the IWC Scientific Committee felt that minke whale numbers in the Antarctic had probably decreased to 300,000 by 2000 or 2001.  Contra, the Japanese: the number was closer to 760,000. We are left more baffled than ever.

The Japanese have not been entirely inflexible, though they will not yield to a complete abolition of all forms of whaling.  Indeed, their opposition to the anti-whaling groups is couched in the language of a beleaguered state.  Japanese negotiators are ever wary of ‘cultural imperialism’ jammed through the backdoor of environmental politics – after all, said one advisor to the Japan Whaling Association, Shigeko Misaki in March 2003, the issue was not whether whaling should take place at all, but how it should take place. For Misaki, organizations in the US happily conceded to the slaughter of the bowhead while furiously defending the hapless minke.

The Japanese breathed a sigh of relief when Congressman Richard Pombo (R-CA) became Chairman of the U.S. House Resources Committee.  Now that was someone who would understand the ‘sustainable use of marine resources’.

The Japanese have, through skill and money, manufactured a consensus among various developing nations, who make the argument that human rights is at stake.  It is certainly as much to do with a battle of lifestyles, a matter, say of whether aboriginal subsistence hunts should be allowed to prosper.  Others are less charitable.  ‘This has more to do with sushi than science,’ suggested Darren Kindleysides, campaign manager of the International Fund for Animal Welfare in January this year.  Money, not knowledge, talks in the forum of the IWC.  The science on that score is secondary, even if much of a case can be made.

The position of such anti-whaling countries as Australia is not particularly glorious either.  What can’t be attained through diplomacy can be done through the courts – the International Court of Justice could have been the scene of an Australian application against Japan, notably on whaling beyond its allowed totals.  But the new Rudd government in Canberra shuddered at the prospect of taking on an otherwise close ally in the courts.  Prior to that, the Labor opposition had been more than content to blow the bugle for a legal redress.

In March this year, there were murmurings that Tokyo might be happy to concede to whaling within their own waters.  Otherwise the Japanese may find themselves leaving the IWC with the puff and indignation of their League of Nation predecessors in 1932.  And the IWC, they promise, will be undermined in much the same way, becoming a toothless league without effective sanction.

BINOY KAMPMARK was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, University of Cambridge.  He can be reached at bkampmark@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

September 19, 2018
Michael McCaffrey
A Curious Case of Mysterious Attacks, Microwave Weapons and Media Manipulation
Elliot Sperber
Eating the Constitution
September 18, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Britain: the Anti-Semitism Debate
Tamara Pearson
Why Mexico’s Next President is No Friend of Migrants
Richard Moser
Both the Commune and Revolution
Nick Pemberton
Serena 15, Tennis Love
Binoy Kampmark
Inconvenient Realities: Climate Change and the South Pacific
Martin Billheimer
La Grand’Route: Waiting for the Bus
John Kendall Hawkins
Seymour Hersh: a Life of Adversarial Democracy at Work
Faisal Khan
Is Israel a Democracy?
John Feffer
The GOP Wants Trumpism…Without Trump
Kim Ives
The Roots of Haiti’s Movement for PetroCaribe Transparency
Dave Lindorff
We Already Have a Fake Billionaire President; Why Would We want a Real One Running in 2020?
Gerry Brown
Is China Springing Debt Traps or Throwing a Lifeline to Countries in Distress?
Pete Tucker
The Washington Post Really Wants to Stop Ben Jealous
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savior
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
Jeff Ballinger
Nike and Colin Kaepernick: Fronting the Bigots’ Team
David Rosen
Why Stop at Roe? How “Settled Law” Can be Overturned
Gary Olson
Pope Francis and the Battle Over Cultural Terrain
Nick Pemberton
Donald The Victim: A Product of Post-9/11 America
Ramzy Baroud
The Veiled Danger of the ‘Dead’ Oslo Accords
Kevin Martin
U.S. Support for the Bombing of Yemen to Continue
Robert Fisk
A Murder in Aleppo
Robert Hunziker
The Elite World Order in Jitters
Ben Dangl
After 9/11: The Staggering Economic and Human Cost of the War on Terror
Charles Pierson
Invade The Hague! Bolton vs. the ICC
Robert Fantina
Trump and Palestine
Daniel Warner
Hubris on and Off the Court
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail