lobbying Commission members or by motivating other pro-use countries to join
the IWC.
Here, the accusation of vote-buying comes into play since Japan apparently used
its foreign aid to lure developing nations into taking a pro-whaling stance in the
Commission.
3 From my own observations, this accusation is somewhat difficult to
contextualise. While it may have been so in the past, this is certainly not unique.
Evidence of secretive meetings does not provide much other evidence than for the
holding of strategic meetings amongst like-minded IWC members. This goes both
ways and is true for anti-whaling and pro-whaling countries. Moreover, this implies
that developing nations are string puppets of the Japanese within the IWC. This is
oversimplifying at best, if not offensive. Having attended several of these strategic
meetings myself, it is by no means so that developing IWC members unequivocally
support Japan. Instead, heated discussions regularly ensue. The common denominator is the sustainable use of resources vis-à-vis the no-use agenda. And it is this view
that also many developing nations share: they are not necessarily ‘pro-whaling’, but
‘pro-sustainable use’. To merely ascribe them dependency on Japan neglects their
capabilities as sovereign nations to stand up for their own interests.
In this context, developing nations within the IWC have also often been criticised
for taking a pro-whaling stance yet without having a whaling history themselves. I
would like to raise two points in this regard: first, the same can be said about antiwhaling nations. For instance Switzerland, which, at the time of writing chairs the
Sub-Committee on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling, does not have a whaling
history—it is a landlocked country—but is stringently anti-commercial whaling.
Yet, along with countries that do in fact have a whaling history it shares the common
denominator of extreme precaution as regards whaling (and sealing, for that matter).
Second, a country that is pro-whaling (or pro-sustainable use of resources) does not
need to have a whaling history, but may have a whaling future. This is especially true
for developing nations which might depend on whale meat as part of their overall
food security in the future. It does not come as a surprise, therefore, that it has been
developing nations that have put forward the link between the IWC and food security
in recent IWC meetings.
Canada is a country that has remained firm concerning its stance on commercial
sealing. Canadian commercial sealing is well embedded in the Canadian legal
system. Moreover, Canada, along with Norway, has taken steps to defend the
commercial seal hunt before the World Trade Organization by trying to overturn
the EU Seal Regime. In terms of whaling, Canada has taken the drastic step of
leaving the IWC once the moratorium on commercial whaling was adopted in 1982.
Although by that time Canada’s hunt for large whales had already been non existent
anymore, it was fear over the potential extension of the IWC’s mandate to include
small cetaceans, thus potentially impacting Canada’s aboriginal beluga and narwhal
hunts.
3 Strand and Tuman (2012).
180
8 The Characteristics of International Marine Mammal Law
the IWC.
Here, the accusation of vote-buying comes into play since Japan apparently used
its foreign aid to lure developing nations into taking a pro-whaling stance in the
Commission.
3 From my own observations, this accusation is somewhat difficult to
contextualise. While it may have been so in the past, this is certainly not unique.
Evidence of secretive meetings does not provide much other evidence than for the
holding of strategic meetings amongst like-minded IWC members. This goes both
ways and is true for anti-whaling and pro-whaling countries. Moreover, this implies
that developing nations are string puppets of the Japanese within the IWC. This is
oversimplifying at best, if not offensive. Having attended several of these strategic
meetings myself, it is by no means so that developing IWC members unequivocally
support Japan. Instead, heated discussions regularly ensue. The common denominator is the sustainable use of resources vis-à-vis the no-use agenda. And it is this view
that also many developing nations share: they are not necessarily ‘pro-whaling’, but
‘pro-sustainable use’. To merely ascribe them dependency on Japan neglects their
capabilities as sovereign nations to stand up for their own interests.
In this context, developing nations within the IWC have also often been criticised
for taking a pro-whaling stance yet without having a whaling history themselves. I
would like to raise two points in this regard: first, the same can be said about antiwhaling nations. For instance Switzerland, which, at the time of writing chairs the
Sub-Committee on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling, does not have a whaling
history—it is a landlocked country—but is stringently anti-commercial whaling.
Yet, along with countries that do in fact have a whaling history it shares the common
denominator of extreme precaution as regards whaling (and sealing, for that matter).
Second, a country that is pro-whaling (or pro-sustainable use of resources) does not
need to have a whaling history, but may have a whaling future. This is especially true
for developing nations which might depend on whale meat as part of their overall
food security in the future. It does not come as a surprise, therefore, that it has been
developing nations that have put forward the link between the IWC and food security
in recent IWC meetings.
Canada is a country that has remained firm concerning its stance on commercial
sealing. Canadian commercial sealing is well embedded in the Canadian legal
system. Moreover, Canada, along with Norway, has taken steps to defend the
commercial seal hunt before the World Trade Organization by trying to overturn
the EU Seal Regime. In terms of whaling, Canada has taken the drastic step of
leaving the IWC once the moratorium on commercial whaling was adopted in 1982.
Although by that time Canada’s hunt for large whales had already been non existent
anymore, it was fear over the potential extension of the IWC’s mandate to include
small cetaceans, thus potentially impacting Canada’s aboriginal beluga and narwhal
hunts.
3 Strand and Tuman (2012).
180
8 The Characteristics of International Marine Mammal Law