Japan thought it had home-field advantage during the 54th annual International Whaling Commission meeting. Not only was the May meeting held in Shimonoseki, a former Japanese whaling center, but it was also stocked with new members brought on board by the island nation. Japan was confident it would pass some, if not all, of its pro-whaling agenda.
But when the meeting adjourned on May 24, 2002, Japan had little to show for its efforts. Commissioners rejected Japan's proposal to give a quota of 50 minke whales to four coastal communities, its bid to re-instate pro-whaling Iceland as a full IWC member, and its Revised Management Scheme (RMS), which would have essentially created an open season on whales.
What's more, Japan's most significant victory was viewed by many as little more than petty revenge. In an apparent reprisal over losing its bid for commercial coastal whaling, Japan and its allies blocked a five-year extension of a subsistence bowhead quota for Russian and Alaskan aboriginal communities. The quota, usually adopted by consensus but instead forced to a vote by Japan, needed a three-quarters majority to pass. But with Japan's maneuverings, it fell one vote short.
Critics quickly accused Japan of playing politics with the lives of aboriginal people, while Japan accused the United States of hypocrisy for allowing the Alaskan Inuit to hunt the endangered bowhead but rejecting Japan's coastal minke proposal. The U.S. contends, however, that the two quotas simply cannot be compared to each other: The Inuit catch is purely for subsistence, since it's estimated that whale meat comprises 80% of the community's diet, while the Japanese quota is purely for commercial purposes.
"Japan made no progress on its pro-whaling agenda at this meeting," said the Humane Society International's Kitty Block, who attended the meeting. "The Japanese delegation only managed to embarrass itself and offend the aboriginal peoples of the United States and the Russian Federation."
Other IWC Issues
In addition to shooting down Japan's RMS, commissioners also voted down Sweden's proposed RMS, a more moderate plan that The HSUS still rejected because it had no enforcement mechanism. Since both RMS plans were denied, the 1986 whaling moratorium remains in place, which means, as one observer put it, "The whales have once more been provided a stay of execution."
But the RMS rejections could have ramifications at the next Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora in November 2002. CITES has historically followed the lead of the IWC; it has therefore kept whales on the Appendix I list, which is reserved for endangered species and which bans the international commercial trade of those animals. But pro-whaling nations say that since the IWC cannot work out a RMS plan, they will have to fall back on CITES. They hope to downlist whales to Appendix II, which would allow the international trade of whale meat, something that Japan and Norway continually fight for.
Japan did score two other victories, but some observers viewed them as hollow ones. The IWC couldn't muster the three-quarters majority required to pass whale sanctuaries in the South Pacific and South Atlantic oceans, but the proposals did garner more votes than the previous year. And both proposals had a simple majority, despite the fact that Japan has stocked the IWC with pro-whaling nations, whose votes, some animal activists claim, have been allegedly bought by the island nation.
The voting patterns at this year's meeting give anti-whaling activists hope. "Next year's meeting will be in Germany, a much friendlier country to whales," said HSI's Block. "It is our hope that Japan's aggressive and inappropriate behavior at these meetings will continue to show other countries and the world that it is not time to give in to Japan."
In Previously Reported IWC News
Anti-whaling nations scored a significant victory on the opening day of the IWC meeting when members rejected Iceland's bid to rejoin as a full member, but with an exemption from the whaling moratorium.
IWC members voted 25–20 on May 20, 2002, against Iceland rejoining the commission as a full member. Iceland was denied re-entry in 2001, and this vote was essentially prompted by Japan's challenge to Chairman Bo Fernholm's 2001 ruling. The members upheld the chairman's ruling and kept Iceland as an observer nation.
The following day, Iceland staged a dramatic if mostly symbolic walk out of the IWC meeting, which has generated some heated arguments between pro- and anti-whaling factions. Iceland's commissioner labeled the IWC illegal and reportedly said, "The IWC has no competence to decide whether a country is a member or not. It's very clear that Iceland considers itself a member."
Iceland withdrew from the IWC in 1992, frustrated over the commission's anti-whaling position. Japan, which continues to whale for "scientific" purposes and wants to expand its hunting activities, supported Iceland's bid to rejoin the IWC; Iceland's addition would give the Japanese one more pro-whaling voice on the commission, joining other pro-whaling nations such as Benin, Gabon, Palau and Mongolia.
Japan continues to face criticism during the meetings, mostly from anti-whaling groups, that it has encouraged countries to join the IWC in exchange for foreign aid. Critics charge that Japan is trying to stock the IWC with pro-whaling allies in an attempt to overturn the 1986 moratorium on whaling. A three-quarters majority is required to overturn the ban. A Japanese representative admitted last year that the country uses this tactic, but the government later denied the charges.
The HSUS/Humane Society International had been urging the IWC to reject Iceland's bid because the country's reservation violates principles of international law and undermines the IWC and other international treaties.
What is The HSUS's involvement in the IWC?
The HSUS is an official nongovernmental organization participating in all aspects of the annual IWC meeting. The HSUS submits scientific papers, offers legal analyses, and presents the humane position regarding whale protection policy.
What can a U.S. citizen do to protect whales?
Write to President Bush and urge him to maintain the U.S. policy against commercial whaling and to impose trade sanctions against Japan.
Contact Information: President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
202-456-1414
Fax: 202-456-2461
E-mail: president@whitehouse.gov
