By Judy Ann Newton_Harzer
Images copyright Greenpeace
|
War is defined as ‘a state of conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups, a sustained contest between rivals or campaign against something undesirable.’ Given those parameters, no one can dispute that the whaling issue has been a long and bloody Since the whaling moratorium was first introduced by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1986, most of the skirmishes have been won by the anti-whaling forces. And year after year, the pro-whaling militia has garnered strength by enlisting the support of smaller nations with methods that have created even more hostility on the field of battle. For the last 18 years the conflict has remained status quo. The pro-whaling nations spearheaded by Japan would charge and each assault was defended by the anti-whaling nations headed by New Zealand and Australia. No ground was gained and no ground was lost, but the battles continued to rage with no prospect of resolution. All of this is changing now as the pro-whaling nations have amassed a sufficient army to change the tide of the war. And unless there are some dramatic changes in ethics and tactics on both sides, the battle may be lost for the whales. Japan has continually increased the number and species of whales taken and sells the meat of the dead whales to fund their research programme. Anti-whaling countries and environmental groups say that the Japanese research whaling scheme is a loophole and ‘a thinly disguised commercial venture.’ It also seems to be a scheme with very few returns, both scientifically and financially. In May 2006 the Japanese research expedition returned with 60 slaughtered minke whales, the maximum allowable under the programme. The report that resulted from that killing effort revealed that whales eat fish. True! Japan’s Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Ministry declared the research found that minkes fed on sand eels and sardines and that as much as 106kg of fish had been found in the stomach of one whale! Japan explained that the harvest of 60 minke whales was necessary to ‘study the impact of the mammals’ feeding on fish stocks.’ Authorities at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reconfirmed their opposition to Japan’s lethal research programme and that it ‘raises questions of scientific validity.’ In the last 19 years, there have been more than 25 individual resolutions demanding the end of lethal scientific research. On 18 June 2006, the first day of this year’s annual International Whaling Commission conference in St Kitts and Nevis, Japan answered those demands by announcing that it would continue its scientific whaling programme, increase the catch, increase the species and increase its range. Since 1987, Japan has killed nearly 8,000 whales. This year’s catch so far included more than 930 minke whales and 10 endangered fin whales. During the North Pacific whaling season, 220 minke, 50 Bryde’s, 100 sei and 10 sperm whales will be caught and filleted. Many observers and conservationists query the need for such an annual slaughter and why, with such staunch opposition, does Japan continue its press for commercialized whaling. Japan upholds that whaling is a national tradition and is a vital component of Japanese food culture. However, in January 2006, a scathing report revealed that the Japanese are actually turning away from whale meat. Whether it is the cost or the stigma that is attached to whaling, Japanese consumption is at low ebb while stockpiles of frozen whale meat have been on the rise since 1998. Japanese authorities have attempted to debunk this claim, but statistics from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries attest that whale meat stocks have doubled in 10 years. Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research declared 5969 tons of whale meat stockpiled as of April 2006 – the highest inventory since 1989. Statistics regarding the annual consumption of whale meat show a decrease to 30 grams (one ounce) per person, or one carving of sashimi. That is a drastic decline from the 1980âs average of 2.5 kilograms (5.5 pounds) per person. To sum it up: catch on the increase, waste on the increase, stockpiles on the increase and consumption on the decrease. And that totals up to a big slap in the cultural tradition wallet to the one billion yen (8.8 million dollars) in government subsidies paid to the whaling industry annually!
Of Allies and Alliances: The only way to overturn the moratorium is with a ¾ majority vote at the annual International Whaling Commission conference. For 18 years, Japan has gone to extreme – and ethically questionable – means to increase their allies in the bid to overturn the whaling moratorium. Year after year accusations of vote buying have been launched against Japan and its pro-whaling alliance. On 18 July 2001 the senior official of the Fisheries Agency of Japan, Maseyuku Komatsu, admitted that Japan had been using overseas aid to ensure the voting support at the IWC conference. Nations big and small, some island nations and some totally landlocked countries have fallen to the tantalizing come-hither of selling their vote for financial remuneration and aide. Most shockingly have been the recent Japanese alliance converts of Palau, Kiribati, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Nauru, Nicaragua, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Togo, Côte dâIvoire, Gabon, Gambia and a great portion of the Caribbean islands. New nations that added to the list of Japan’s prostitutes this year included Cambodia and the Marshall Islands. Once again, into the breach: On the eve of the opening volleys of the conference, Japan smugly launched a threat ‘to use its pro-whaling smaller majority to some issues that are vital to whale conservation and welfare from the agenda.’
Voting issue 1: Japan moved that any reference for discussion on conservation of small cetaceans (dolphins and porpoises) be struck from the agenda. In a move intended to flex the muscle of the pro-whaling axis, the pro-whaling nations were slapped down by a vote of 32 votes to 30.
Voting issue 2: Japan calls for secret ballots. Japan has long contended that some nations are intimidated and penalized for their pro-whaling votes with boycotts in the home nations. Japan felt assured, as it always has, that a secret ballot would be in their favour to secure the necessary votes to assure a win on the major issues. By a vote of 33 to 30, transparency in voting was protected.
Voting issue 3: Japan requests an exemption to the moratorium on commercial whaling allowing them to hunt 150 minke whales and 150 Brydes whales in Japan’s territorial waters. In a vote that was closer than ever - and too close for comfort- the request failed by a vote of 31 to 30 with 4 abstentions.
Voting issue 4: A resolution to dissolve the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary failed with a resounding 33 to 28 vote.
Voting issue 5: A resolution regarding safety aboard vessels while involved in whaling or research-related actions passed by consensus with reservation from St Kitts and Nevis.
Voting issue 6: ‘The St. Kitts Declaration’, in short verse, states after 14-years of failed negotiations, the ‘commissioners expressed their concern that the IWC has failed to meet its obligations under the terms of the ICRWâ (International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling) and that âthe moratorium, which was clearly intended as a temporary measure, is no longer necessary.â In a stunning blow to conservationists and anti-whaling nations, the vote passed by 33 to 32. The response to the victory was sudden and ribald. Cheers, applause and slaps on the back were let loose while a stunned anti-whaling audience sat in awe. While the declaration was a non-binding document proposed by 30 pro-whaling IWC members, it does declare support for the pro-whaling agenda and intimates that the IWC will collapse if the moratorium is not overturned. What it does not propose is any alternative course of action for the IWC other than dissolving the moratorium. (To read the complete text of the St Kitts and Nevis Declaration go to the IWC website at
www.iwcoffice.org/
)
Final Volleys: As with every IWC Conference, the spears and arrows were slung rapid-fire. Japan attempted to block votes and discussions regarding whale watching, whale killing methods and other âwelfareâ issues. But with a stinging report just released about the inhumane methods of slaughter by Japanese factory ships still fresh on everyoneâs minds, it is no wonder that the Japanese delegation wished to side-step this issue completely. Japanese commissioner Minoru Morimoto said âThese are outside the competence of the IWC and non-essential, while leaving essential issues, such as proper management of whale stocks, unsolved.â When asked for comment regarding the victory of the St Kitts & Nevis Declaration, he responded âThe road ahead for normalization is still long but the direction of the wind has changed. We hope to further strengthen the unity.â
Parting shots: One of the benefits of writing for a magazine is that you have the opportunity to voice your opinion on occasion – as long as the managing editor likes what you say. Having been in attendance at many IWC conferences does not make me a pro on the subject, but you donât have to be a military strategist to see that the tide of this war is turning. Since the 53rd IWC Conference in London in 2001, Japanâs delegation has been threatening to pull out of the IWC and establish its own whaling management commission. In the opening session of the 54th meeting in Sorrento, Italy, I was present when Mr Morimoto warned that Japan had come to the âend of its patienceâ regarding the moratorium and again threatened to withdraw from the IWC if a return to commercial whaling was not to be realized by the 57th annual meeting in 2005. At the conclusion of the 2006 conference, Japan announced that it would begin efforts outside of the IWC to advance the process of ânormalizationâ for commercial whaling. Meetings were already underway behind closed doors in St Kitts and a full-scale meeting of pro-whaling interests could take place as early as January in Tokyo. For years we have all watched with nothing more than disdain and criticism as Japan bought votes, overtly whaled within the South Ocean Sanctuary and contravened the principles on which the IWC is based and structured. So why are we surprised that the pro-whaling axis has finally gained the upper hand? Once victory is within sight, do not expect a retreat or a return to the status quo. Admonishment has failed. Censure has failed. The whaling activists know that the IWC and the collective member nations will not really do anything that will serve as anything more than a slap on the wrist. If all is fair in war, then it is time that other member nations may have to adopt the techniques of the Japanese. If buying votes to insure the failure of the moratorium will work, then buying votes to insure the survival of the moratorium can work just as well. Conservation-minded citizens of the world have already let their voices be heard. CDS and CDNN (Cyber Diver News Network visit
www.cdnn.info/
) launched a boycott against the Republic of Palau when it allied with Japan at the IWC in 2002. By November 2005 CDS estimated that the boycott has cost Palau in excess of $17 million US in lost tourism revenue. The likewise success of boycotts against Caribbean nations has also dented their governmental coffers.
Newswire polls taken the week of the June 16-20, 2006 IWC Conference asked readers, âShould the international ban on whaling be lifted?â 93% of the respondents said âNOâ while 7% voted âYES.â In Australia, the poll asked âShould PM John Howard demand an end to Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean?â 91% responded âYESâ, 8% voted âNOâ and 1% were undecided. The issue of whaling is a battle and the meek shall not inherit the earth in this war. But there is one thing that we can all agree on. Joji Morishita, spokesman for the Japanese delegation, said the Japanese were pleased it was not a secret ballot. âJapan will remember which countries supported this proposal and which countries said no,â he said. Yes, we will ALL remember who said Yes and who said No.
With special thanks to Greenpeace for their generosity with photographs.
http://oceans.greenpeace.org/
The World is Watching: Dateline 17 June 2006 – A report is released on the scientific analysis of Japanese whale hunt video footage proving that Japanâs whaling methods are contrary to the humane manner prescribed by the IWC. The report found that the video shows: ⢠More than 80% of whales are not killed instantly once harpooned. This is due, the report states, to the lack of ability of harpoon gunners to hit the area close to the whaleâs brain ⢠Once harpooned, whales are often alive as they are winched into the hunting ship with the harpoon embedded into their flesh, causing severe suffering. ⢠Whales that are winched in alive often donât die from the blow of the harpoon, but die of suffocation, with their blow holes forced under water by the process of winching them in. ⢠Whales that are not killed instantly by the harpoon may struggle from 10 to 35 minutes before dying, exhibiting signs of suffering during this period
Moments in time from the IWC: 18 July 2001: Fisheries ministry head Maseyuku Komatsu referred to minke whales, which Japan is allowed to catch under a scientific research programme, as âcockroaches of the oceans.â 17 July 2001: âJapan does not have military power, unlike the United States and Australia,â Komatsu said. âJapanese means are simply diplomatic communication and overseas development aid. So in order to get appreciation of Japanâs position, that is natural we must resort to those two major toolsâ. 2004: âIn Japan we have pet dogs. But we donât tell the Koreans to stop eating dogs. Nor should people tell us to stop eating whales.â Yoshimasa Hayashi.
June 2006: âThere are enough whales for those who want to watch them and for those who want to eat them,â Morishita said in a briefing paper. âThe situation is not different from a farm tour with a BBQ lunch.â June 2006: âWe will also continue our whale research activities in the Antarctic.â Japanâs commissioner Minoru Morimoto.
(Have your vote:
www.whalesrevenge.com
;
www.cdnn.info/then
click on act now)
2006 IWC Member Nations (70) Year of Adherence and Voting Record
Contracting Nation Year of Adherence Vote2 Secret Ballot Vote 5 St Kitts Resolution
Antigua & Barbuda 21/07/82 Yes Yes
Argentina 18/05/60 No No
Australia 0/11/48 No No
Austria 20/05/94 No No
Belgium 15/07/04 No No
Belize 17/06/03 No No
Benin 26/04/02 Yes Yes
Brazil 04/01/74 No No
Cambodia 01/06/06 Yes Yes
Cameroon 14/06/05 Yes Yes
Chile 06/07/79 No No
Peopleâs Republic of China 24/09/80 Yes Abstain
Costa Rica 24/07/81 No voting status
Côte dâIvoire 08/07/04 Yes Yes
Czech Republic 26/01/05 No No
Denmark 23/05/50 No Yes
Dominica 18/06/92 Yes Yes
Finland 23/02/83 No No
France 03/12/48 No No
Gabon 08/05/02 Yes Yes
The Gambia 17/05/05 Yes Yes
Germany 02/07/82 No No
Grenada 07/04/93 Yes Yes
Guatemala 16/05/06 Absent Absent
Republic of Guinea 21/06/00 Yes Yes
Hungary 01/05/04 No No
Iceland 10/10/02 Yes Yes
India 09/03/81 No No
Ireland 02/01/85 No No
Israel 07/06/06 No No
Italy 06/02/98 No No
Japan 21/04/51 Yes Yes
Kenya 02/12/81 No voting status
Kiribati 28/12/04 Yes Yes
Luxembourg 10/06/05 No No
Republic of Korea 29/12/78 Yes Yes
Mali 17/08/04 Yes Yes
Republic of the Marshall Islands 01/06/06 Yes Yes
Mauritania 23/12/03 Yes Yes
Mexico 30/06/49 No No
Monaco 15/03/82 No No
Mongolia 16/05/02 Yes Yes
Morocco 12/02/01 Yes Yes
Nauru 15/06/05 Yes Yes
Netherlands 14/06/77 No No
New Zealand 15/06/76 No No
Nicaragua 05/06/03 Yes Yes
Norway 03/03/48 Yes Yes
Oman 15/07/80 No No
Republic of Palau 08/05/02 Yes Yes
Panama 12/06/01 No No
Peru 18/06/79 No voting status
Portugal 14/05/02 No No
Russian Federation 10/11/48 Yes Yes
San Marino 16/04/02 No No
St Kitts and Nevis 24/06/92 Yes Yes
St Lucia 29/06/81 Yes Yes
St Vincent & The Grenadines 22/07/81 Yes Yes
Senegal 15/07/82 Absent Yes
Slovak Republic 22/03/05 No No
Solomon Islands 10/05/93 Abstain Yes
South Africa 10/11/48 No No
Spain 06/07/79 No No
Suriname 15/07/04 Yes Yes
Sweden 15/06/79 No No
Switzerland 29/05/80 No No
Togo 15/06/05 Absent Yes
Tuvalu 30/06/04 Yes Yes
UK 10/11/48 No No
USA 10/11/48 No No