The whaling dispute that persisted between Japan and the United States from the early 1970's seems to have eased since the 54th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC)was held in Shimonoseki in May 2002. The recent departure and return of the Japanese whaling fleet commissioned by the Government to undertake the continuing research program in the North Pacific and in the Antarctic have prompted no antagonistic response from Washington. In the previous years when Japan announced the commencement of the annual research activities, the seemingly automatic result was Japan-bashing. Typical of the U.S. actions was threatened certification under Pelly Amendment, with its attendant risks of a trade conflict brought about by the U.S. sanctions.

In the public arena, Greenpeace Japan seems to have quietly dropped anti-whaling from its agenda. The Japanese research fleet enjoyed a peaceful New Year's Day 2003 despite the threats of an attack by the 600ton boat of the U.S.-based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Has Japan overcome the disruptive protests against its whaling at last? Sea Shepherd, presumably because of its history of taking violent action, sunk several whaling boats. However, it failed to get any assistance from its potential allies and left the whaling ground in the second week of January for a restful stop in Tahiti.

So as we mark the 31st year since the adoption of the whaling moratorium resolution by the United Nation's Environmental Conference in Stockholm, we can now ask: has Japan finally established its principle of sustainable utilization of the whale resources after the four decades of ruthless political conflict? There are good reasons to hope that this might be the case.

One reason why the present calm has arisen is undoubtedly that developed nations currently face numerous political, economic and security problems. Many activists believe this will change if the economy improves and a peaceful world is found. The current events though have served to put the whaling dispute into a wider perspective in which its importance to the U.S. is exposed as microscopic. Strategic
concerns in the Pacific region considerably outweigh concerns in Washington, D.C. about Japan hunting a small number of abundant whales.

The second factor is that, by confronting the U.S. over its own whaling program at Shimonoseki, Japan sent a strong message. Perhaps for the first time since World War II, it was prepared to stand up to the injustices by its mentor countries and allies. Japan confronted the double standard (under which the U.S. citizens were permitted to hunt endangered bowhead whales yet Japan nationals were prohibited from hunting abundant minke whales) and won.

Although, a Special Meeting of the IWC in Cambridge subsequently adopted the bowhead quota by consensus, a significant shift was signalled in the U.S approach when it voted in favour of a resolution on the resumption of Japanese coastal whaling.

This change of stance was a big step for the small coastal whaling industry. The U.S. had always taken the lead on Japan -bashing Now it is saying that humanitarian views may be incorporated into the natural resource management strategy and that whale hunting is acceptable if supported by science and if whale products are not sold for profit, while Washington lawmakers seek passing the special income tax exemption law for Eskimo whalers.

However, this development has angered the anti-whaling organizations. Such organizations as the International Wildlife Coalition and controversially-named Humane Society of the United States are reported to be circulating documents condemning the administration for making this switch. But the principles of the campaigners have also been exposed by Japan's stand in Shimonoseki. They lobbied aggressively in favour of the hunt of the endangered bowhead and against that of the non-endangered minke whale. This irrationality can only be explained by acknowledging that what matters to them is "who" hunts the whales, and not "what" whales are being hunted.

After all, when the species such as minke whales are not endangered, what is the point of asking Japan to stop whaling? At IWC meetings over the past three decades, when I worked as an interpreter for the Japanese delegation, I repeatedly encountered comments like: " Japan should become more like us, and stop eating whale meat. Japan should buy more beef and fish from us and leave the culturally backward class of nations." This kind of remarks were most often made
by the New Zealand Commissioner.

Fortunately, this type of "cultural imperialism" is also less likely now that the Congressman Richard Pombo (Republican, CA) has become the Chairman of the U.S. House Resources Committee. Rep. Pombo is well-known to the Japanese diet members as an ally on sustainable use of marine resources, including whales. His tenure can be expected to precipitate greater cooperation and understanding of whaling issues.

Whatever the impact of current world tensions on bringing about this reproachement on whaling, this constructive, yet overdue approach is welcomed. There is every reason to hope that it can be maintained. However, whether or not this new climate between the U.S. and Japan could influence Australia’s policy still remains unpredictable.