Japan
Whaling War
Are Pacific Island Nations Voting For Japan?
For anti-whaling countries such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand, the issue is black and white. Killing whales is outrageous, illegal and poses a threat to their long-term survival. For many Pacific Islanders, however, there are shades of gray when it comes to whaling, which showed in the one-vote victory for the pro-whaling contingent at the International Whaling Commission’s annual meeting in St. Kitts in June.
While the pro-whaling resolution, which passed 33-32, is non-binding, it indicates the growing success of intensive lobbying efforts by Japan, in particular, to lift a more than 20-year-old moratorium on whaling. It is unlikely that Japan and other whaling nations can achieve a two-thirds majority vote to rescind the current ban on whaling. But the St. Kitts’ vote is an indication that the tide is turning away from the anti-whaling nations.
- ADVERTISEMENT -
The resolution was lambasted by anti-whaling groups and countries alike, which criticized as disingenuous the reasons given to support commercial whaling. “Blaming whales for collapsing fisheries is like blaming woodpeckers for deforestation,” said Greenpeace’s Mike Townsley after the resolution passed.
 |
| Senator Ian Campbell [photo: Giff Johnson] |
Australian Environment Minister Ian Campbell, who flew to Kiribati and the Marshall Islands just days before the vote to lobby island leaders against whaling, criticized Japan’s efforts to get island countries to back a resumption of whaling. Island countries “should negotiate as sovereign nations” and not be swayed by Japanese aid, he said. “Australia provides money for sustainable development and humanitarian welfare,” he said. “We don’t give money and say if you don’t vote this way there’ll be no aid.”
All six island countries that are IWC members—Kiribati, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Palau and Nauru—voted with Japan. Interestingly, although apparently coincidentally, these countries are the six in the region with diplomatic ties to Taiwan. With the exception of Nauru and the Solomons, all have significant bilateral aid packages with Japan, focused around fisheries, that are greater than Australia’s aid.
 |
|
Minister John Silk [photo: Giff Johnson]
|
But Marshall Islands Minister of Resources and Development John Silk bristles at the accusation that his country joined the IWC and supported a pro-whaling resolution because of arm-twisting by Japan. “We had to join the IWC because we’re a Pacific nation and we should have a voice in conservation,” he said. “It’s not because we were pressured by anyone to join.”
He likened the Marshall Islands participation in the IWC to its membership in the Tuna Commission established recently to regulate fishing on the high seas in the Pacific. “If we allow a total ban on whales, who’s to say that there won’t be a ban on tuna in the future?” Silk commented. “Then what happens to Marshall Islands? That’s why we joined the Tuna Commission to work for sustainable marine use.”
The six island nations in the IWC are also Tuna Commission members. As small countries, “nobody pays much attention to us (at the IWC),” Silk said. “But perhaps we have something of value to contribute to the IWC as members of the Tuna Commission.” The Tuna Commission, comprised of both fishing nations and island countries, has so far managed to successfully navigate the conflicting interests of these two groups.
It’s not only on whales, but also on turtles that Pacific Islanders frequently find themselves at loggerheads with Americans, Australians and other westerners. Turtles are an endangered species but are also part of people’s traditional diet in the region, and while efforts have been made in many islands to reduce turtle harvesting, turtle meat remains a treasured food item. Silk commented on a recent international meeting in Majuro where turtle meat was served to visiting VIPs. “The westerners were appalled,” he recalled. “But it’s our custom to give the best to VIP visitors.”
The pro-whaling resolution from St. Kitts mentions “cultural diversity and traditions”—a euphemism for traditions of catching and eating whales. Silk emphasizes this point. “Different cultures eat whale meat,” he said. “It’s a food source for some. Just as Marshallese like to eat turtles. You can’t be indifferent to the cultures of different countries.”
Anti-whaling forces counter this by saying it’s an excuse to justify a resumption of major, commercial-level whaling by Japan.
“In my view, it will be quite unusual to see Pacific nations with strong futures in marine protection potentially lining up to undermine one of the greatest ecological developments of the 20th century,” Campbell said of efforts to undermine the whaling moratorium that the St. Kitts’ resolution represents.
For the Pacific, there is a clear and growing financial link to protecting whales. “We’ve gone from zero to about 3,000 whales on Australian coasts,” Campbell said. “An A$300 (US$229) million (tourist) industry has been built on this in the last 15 years.” Tonga now has an expanding whale-watching industry that is contributing to the local economy, and other islands could see similar developments, he said. But Tonga’s still-fragile whale population could be decimated by commercial whaling by the Japanese, he said. “Eco-based tourism may not be the savior but it is an opportunity for some islands,” he said.
Silk isn’t sanguine on the issue, but he’d like to see the polarized groups find some middle ground. “There has to be some give,” he said. “Any international group has to have some give and take to work. At the end of the day, we need to preserve the IWC, breathe new life into it.”
But while Silk sees shades of gray, it’s still black and white for the pro- and anti-whaling factions.
