Whaling Vote Goes in Favor of Hunting Nations

The International Whaling Commission approved a resolution over the week-end that supported an end to the ban on commercial whaling, 33-32 with one abstention. While overturning the ban requires a 75% majority, this was a key test of members’ sentiments. Or perhaps, it merely reflected the effects of Japanese money being spread around to poor nations who voted Japan’s way.

Considering just what nations have recently joined the IWC, and how they voted, it is clear something fishy (deliberate pun) happened. For example, Antigua and Barbuda’s assistant IWC commissioner Joanne Massiah, explained why her country voted with Japan, “Cultural imperialism must be resisted forcefully at every turn whenever it tries to raise its ugly head.” So, the nations of the Caribbean need whaling to develop? That would explain 500 years without much progress – too much tourism, sugar and off-shore banking and not enough minke harvesting.

On the other side, New Zealand Minister of Conservation Chris Carter said, “The attitude that because our forefathers killed whales we should emulate them must be set aside.” That rings very true whether whales are involved in the topic at hand or not. Just because one’s ancestors engaged in foolishness doesn’t require the present generations to do so. Otherwise, progress is impossible, and society becomes stagnant not stable.

Of course, Japan still engages in whaling. It just labels the hunts scientific, and after scientifically killing the whales, it seems a shame not to use the body for economically useful things, like meat. Japan denies officially that the whaling is commercial, but the attitude of the delegation is more honest and the objective is plausible. “We want to make sure we can get countries to accept the fact that we can at some point move to sustainable commercial hunting of whales,” said Joji Morishita the leader of the Japanese delegation.

That whale numbers have increased since the ban went into effect cannot be disputed. Some even claim that whales are over-feeding on other species, and that hunting would restore a balance to the ocean’s food chain. Maybe. Yet the big question isn’t being asked. Are cetaceans like whales and dolphins self-aware enough and intelligent enough to merit added protection. Some nations recognize certain great ape species as deserving what may be called “rights” due to their intelligence and anthropomorphism. As an economic debate, whaling may or may not be reasonable. As a moral one, the arguing has yet to start. Put differently, there shouldn't be a whale hunt, not because whales are endangered, but because they are whales.

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home