| ISANA
Dec. 2002 No.26 |
page
1- 2 - 3 - 4
- 5
- 6 |
page3
WHALE-HUGGERS' CASE IS UP THE SPOUT
From Sydney Morning
Herald Dated 28 May 2002
 |
Padraic P. McGuinness
Journalist |
|
The
meetings of the International Whaling Commission have long been noted
for unproductive brawling. The only difference at the most recent
one was that Japan is finally resisting being pushed around by the
whale-huggers of the rest of the world.
In the process
it exposed the absurdity, indeed the hypocrisy, of the Australian
Government's commitment to a South Pacific whale sanctuary.
The IWC was set
up originally as a result of well-justified fears that major whale
species were in danger of extinction as a result of over-fishing.
This danger is long past.
While there is
reason for caution and the maintenance of bans on fishing for some
species, in general there is no longer any good case to be made against
whaling to supply those people who wish to eat whale meat. It is true
that no-one needs to eat whale meat these days, any more than anyone
needs to eat pork - but that is no reason to ban its consumption.
It is also true
that not a single indigenous person of any country, including the
United States or Russia, needs to eat whale meat.
Japan acted perfectly
logically in insisting that if there were to be a ban on whaling it
should apply equally to those who, in the name of some special sacred
right of indigenous peoples, had been exempted from the general ban.
Their protein needs can be perfectly adequately supplied in other
ways - they simply do not depend for their survival on eating whales.
If its
claim is to be based on tradition, then Japan has an equally valid
claim to hunt and eat whales on a traditional basis. If the survival
of a whale species is not threatened - and it is getting harder and
harder to argue with a straight face that minke whales, which are
very numerous in the Southern Ocean, would have their survival threatened
by limited commercial whaling - there is no sense in protecting it.
Japan already conducts some whaling, under the guise of scientific
study, and it is ridiculous to suggest that this in any way threatens
the survival of the minke. |
|
 |
Where
does the obsession with preventing whaling spring from? Once the rational
aim of ensuring the survival of species has been achieved, the rest
is just a hotchpotch of emotion and superstition. Of course whales
are remarkable beasts, but so are pigs - and no less intelligent.
What makes whales morally superior to pigs? It is just that they are
bigger?
There
simply is no good reason to refrain from killing and eating whales
unless one is a vegetarian, and that is a personal not a political
choice. Some humanitarian considerations are involved but they are
not the main point.
Few
opponents of whaling will allow that any improvements in technique
or any degree of certainty about species survival would permit a resumption
of commercial whaling.
The
real mystery is why the Australian Government wastes so much diplomatic
effort on this nonsense. It is understandable that Labor governments
like to throw the odd bone to their own lunatic fringe supporters,
but it can only be supposed that the Coalition has itself a sufficient
fringe of such supporters to feel it necessary to do the same.
There
is no international political capital to be gained from the continuation
of the anti-whaling charade, nor the South Pacific sanctuary proposal.
It must be that much of the push for the sanctuary comes from bureaucrats,
who are disproportionately influenced by the fashions of the half-educated
middle classes.
It
may be that Japan has finally decided to force the collapse of the
nonfunctional IWC. It has successfully persuaded a number of other
countries to agree with it. Whether this has involved payments, direct
or indirect, hardly matters - it is standard practice in world politics
for wealthy countries to bribe poor countries (unfortunately, most
of the money goes to the privileged classes, not to relieving poverty).
The
lies and misrepresentations peddled by secretive non-government organizations
such as Greenpeace are understandable. Campaigning against whaling
is one of their best money-raisers.
There
is certainly considerable feeling in the community against whaling.
But that is easily dealt with on a domestic level - few people in
Australia would feel moved to campaign for a resumption of Australian-based
whaling, which had a proud history.
But why should
Australia, the moralisers of the European Union and other comfortable
rich countries try to impose their dietary and religious preferences
on the rest of the world? |
 |
| Opening ceremony of the 54th IWC meeting in Shimonoseki |
|
|
