Doing the hard yards to end whaling

Killing whales in the 21st century is an act destined to inflame the hearts and minds of millions of people. When governments go to war over non-existent weapons of mass destruction but refuse to protect the most visible icons of the natural world, people get angry.

After all, whales have inhabited the Earth for over ten million years. Protecting whales and their habitats is vitally important to sustaining healthy marine ecosystems. Saving whales is as much about preserving humanity as it is about whales.

In order to understand the complexities of the whaling debate, let’s put aside moral and ethical issues and instead examine highly relevant facts which are not seeing the light of day in the mainstream media. Politicians accuse activists of being emotional. In fact this accusation provides a smokescreen for governments, allowing the real issues to be left in the closet. Emotion provides a smokescreen for some environmental groups who are more focused on raising funds than making the hard yards required to bring closure to Japanese whaling.

The major cause of government inaction and the driver behind Japanese whaling is trade. Japanese harpoons are the weapons of globalisation: inaction by anti-whaling governments the legacy of the World trade Organisation (WTO).

Historically, the US enforced the decisions of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) by threatening to impose trade sanctions. The last time the US Government formally certified Japan, a precursor to imposing trade sanctions, was after Japan’s decision to add protected Byrdes whales to its “scientific whaling program”. At the time, Secretary of Commerce Norman Mineta noted:

The US is deeply concerned that the real aim of this large hunt is to pave the way for an outright resumption of whaling. By killing whales in defiance of the scientific advice of the IWC, which is an expression of the majority of IWC members, Japan is undermining the ability of the body to achieve its missions.

In one of his last acts of office, President Clinton directed that Japan be denied access to allotments for fishing rights in US waters. However, since no foreign fishing allotments existed at that time in waters under US jurisdiction, the threat of sanctions had no weight.

The Bush Administration is driving the globalisation agenda. Any suggestion of using trade sanctions to enforce the IWC is right off the radar. WTO interests take precedence, ensuring the enforcement of international environmental treaties relying on trade sanctions will soon be redundant. Such a major change in US policy has had a profound effect on whale survival and Japanese scientific whaling. Without the outspoken support and threat of trade sanctions by the world’s only super power, whales are behind the eight ball. At the last IWC meeting in Ulsan, South Korea, in June, the US delegation was almost silent.

Other anti-whaling nations, such as Australia, UK and New Zealand, stepped into line behind the US. Evidence of the superiority of economic interests over conservation is highly visible in terms of the Australian Government’s reaction to Japan’s current whaling which is taking place in Australia’s Antarctic EEZ claim.

The proposed Japan-Australia free trade agreement has precedence over the Howard Government’s anti-whaling policies ensuring the response from Canberra is big on words and non-existent on action. Delegates from anti-whaling nations at the IWC will talk privately about the influence of globalisation and Japan’s investment on their governments.

The bottom line is that trade takes precedence over substantive action against Japan. Tony Blair’s government, with strong anti-whaling policies, is also toeing the line, maintaining there is no legal action that can be taken to stop Japanese whaling.

All WTO ratifying governments, including the US and Australia, have adopted tariff schedules which permit the import and export of whale and dolphin meat and products. This inclusion is in direct violation of national conservation laws to protect cetaceans.

Total catches by Japanese whaling ships are hard to differentiate from commercial whaling. Approximately 7,900 minke whales, 243 Byrdes whales, 140 sei whales and 38 sperm whales have been taken in Antarctica and the Western North Pacific in the last 18 years. In contrast, the combined take of all other nations for scientific research since 1952 is approximately 2,100 whales. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has passed 33 resolutions over the past l6 years condemning Japanese scientific whaling.

Revenue from the commercial sale of whale meat in Japan is estimated to be around US$50 million annually. Subsidies of US$l0 million per year are paid out by the Japanese Government, these subsidies are invested in the maintenance and operation of the Japanese whaling fleet.

Although some legal experts believe that if trade sanctions were imposed, Japan would have a viable dispute claim in the WTO, the US$l0 million worth of subsidies given by the Japanese Government to the whaling industry may well be challenged. WTO challenges are mired in controversy and complexity: no one can predict the outcomes with any certainty.

With no powers of enforcement, the IWC is a toothless tiger relying on self-regulation and powerless to deal with abuses of the convention. According to international legal experts, Japan is violating the Law of the Sea, the Biodiversity Convention, the Convention on Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the Madrid Protocol and the Antarctic Treaty.

These same experts detail strategies which anti-whaling governments could utilise to stop Japan. While challenges in the International Court of Justice of the Law of the Sea Tribunal carry some risk, other options have been laid out under the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS).

The Antarctic Treaty System presents a variety of provisions which could be brought to bear against Japan. However, within the ATS, a gentlemen’s agreement ensures whales are never discussed in the context of Antarctic marine ecosystem. This exclusion is supported by the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand. No anti-whaling country will take action against Japan under the ATS and no anti-whaling government will produce the legal advices on which they rely to defend their position of non-action.

Similarly, Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd fighting valiant battles in the icy Antarctic waters need to adopt strategies which see an end to their highly dangerous campaigns against Japanese whaling. Such strategies need to be based on solid legal grounds which automatically provide moral weight.

Lobbying efforts by anti-whaling governments would be better directed to the Bush Administration, focusing on its failure to uphold the IWC. Anti-whaling governments, who allow international conventions ratified by their parliaments to be weakened by delinquent nations, are as guilty as the whalers and deserve public protest and condemnation.

Finally, the real cost of globalisation in terms of the environment needs to be discussed and factored in to economic policies. What would a world without whales be worth?