Asahi Newspaper editorial on whaling issue

[Guest guest]

EDITORIAL/ Japan's whaling plans: A compromise is clearly the only

solution.

 

06/28/2005

 

This year's annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission

(IWC) ended last week in usual acrimony. The meeting produced no

progress toward a cease-fire in the long-running war between countries

that want to hunt whales, including Japan and Norway, and those opposed

to the practice, such as Britain and the United States.

 

The biggest topic during the week of heated debates in Ulsan, South

Korea, was Japan's plan to expand its scientific whaling program. Japan

announced it will double its annual catch of minke whales from 400 or

so and will also hunt a small number of humpback and fin whales under

the research program.

 

The IWC meeting adopted an Australia-sponsored resolution urging Japan

to stop killing the whales for research purposes.

 

But each government is allowed to make its own decisions on scientific

whaling under international rules. And despite the resolution, Tokyo

plans to take the announced steps to expand the program this autumn.

 

The meat of the whales caught under the program is sold to cover

research costs. Indeed, this system supports the small number of

restaurants in Japan specializing in whale cuisine and has been harshly

criticized as commercial whaling in disguise.

 

The Fisheries Agency says the planned expansion of scientific whaling

is necessary to obtain accurate data about changes in the marine

ecosystem. But the scale seems too large for that purpose. Norway, for

example, catches just around 800 minke whales a year in its coastal

whaling.

 

If the current situation is examined in a cool-headed manner, the

pro-whaling camp, which claims there are some abundant species of

whales, appears to have a stronger case. The IWC's panel of scientists

estimated in 1990 that there are 760,000 minke whales in the Antarctic

Ocean, concluding that controlled commercial whaling would not endanger

this species.

 

But the panel's assessment has not led to an end to the 1986

moratorium on commercial whaling because opponents say there is no

reliable system to monitor catches and ensure compliance.

 

The anti-whalers are determined to maintain the total ban on

commercial whaling, regardless of the species or numbers involved, but

their argument is not reasonable enough to win support from most of the

world.

 

That does not mean, however, that Japan's case is widely supported.

The fact that several kinds of whales are abundant does not justify the

restarting of commercial whaling, not at least for the anti-whaling

countries. Japan wants to hunt whales in places like the Antarctic

Ocean. But there are now many people in the world who do not want

whales killed, whether they are endangered or not. Japan should pay

attention to this sentiment, at least concerning whaling on the high

seas.

 

The only realistic formula potentially acceptable for both camps would

be to ban commercial whaling on the high seas and limit catches to

coastal whaling. The anti-whaling nations should allow each country to

make whaling decisions in their economic waters.

 

Japan has the right to preserve its tradition of coastal whaling. But

it would be better advised to refrain from going as far as the

Antarctic Ocean to hunt whales.

 

Unless both camps make mutual concessions, there will never be a

solution to the dispute. The only thing either side can now do is to

try to bulldoze their proposals through the committee and hope to win

the three-quarters of votes needed to make any significant policy

change at the IWC. This is unlikely to happen because both camps are

recruiting allies in a spirited campaign to increase their support base

within the IWC.

 

The IWC is now almost equally divided between pro-whaling and

anti-whaling states. It is no longer rare for an inland country to join

the commission as a new member.

 

The dispute at the IWC has reached a hopeless impasse. One idea worth

consideration is to shift the venue to other forums, like the U.N. Food

and Agriculture Organization or the summit of the Group of Eight.

 

Constructive discussions on this issue are needed to calmly review the

extreme stances both parties have presented at IWC meetings.

 

--The Asahi Shimbun, June 27(IHT/Asahi: June 28,2005)