The plenary session of this year's annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was held for five days from June 16 in St. Christopher and Nevis, a tiny island country in the Caribbean (commonly called St. Kitts and Nevis in the region). For me, this was the third time to attend the IWC annual meeting after those held in Shimonoseki, Japan and Ulsan, Korea.

  My area of specialty being geography (human geography and economic geography), I took an immense interest in going to the Caribbean region first of all. I found out that I could reach the country in one day by flying from Tokyo via Chicago and San Juan in Puerto Rico. My return trip, however, required one night's stay in Chicago, after flying from St. Kitts to Miami.

  As an NGO with scarce financial resources, I faced difficult problems in procuring funds for travel and accommodations. Especially we racked our brain on how to find a cheaper hotel. Unlike the last meeting in Ulsan, we have fewer NGOs supporting our cause. In our travel, I truly felt that the Caribbean is a far-away region.

  However, I had the merit of coming to the Caribbean with much effort because I could witness the historical moment of the adoption of the St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration on the third day of the meeting.

  Japan's proposal on the second day regarding permission to catch 150 minke whales in Japan's coastal waters was rejected with the votes of 30 in favor, 31 against and 4 abstentions. Five of the 70 members were either absent or deprived of the voting right. In this voting, we caught up with the anti-whaling bloc to the extent of a difference of only one vote.

  On the next day, the epoch-making St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration was adopted with 33 votes in favor, 32 against and one abstention (China). Senegal, which had been absent until the previous day, arrived and cast a supporting vote. Also, the supporting votes of the Republic of Korea and Denmark--two countries not necessarily fully supporting Japan--contributed greatly.

  A big applause arose in the conference room at the moment when a declaration stating that the commercial whaling moratorium is no longer necessary was adopted. It was a moment when the pro-sustainable whaling group, which sustained defeats since 1982, marked a victory at long last.

  After the Chair's statement on the adoption of the declaration, objections were put forward by anti-whaling countries. The first hysteric voice was raised by Brazil, which said that it does not recognize the validity of this voting. The reason given was that Iceland's participation in the voting was illegal. As is known, Iceland withdrew from the Commission membership several years ago. Later, when Iceland asked for readmission to the IWC, its request had not been accepted smoothly by the malevolent resistance of anti-whaling countries. The issue was unsettled at the Shimonoseki meeting four years ago because the anti-whaling group took issue with Iceland's past records. It seems to me that the anti-whaling countries tended to object to anything they chose as unacceptable.

  Humorously enough, however, Iceland had been taking part in the voting until the previous day. It cast a vote in favor of Japan's proposal regarding coastal whaling. To that voting, Brazil did not object. Anti-whaling members never complain when their assertion is accepted. Conversely, when they are denied, they bring up every reason to the contrary. To Brazil, views were expressed from the floor, such as "Be courageous enough to admit your defeat" or "This is democracy", each time with laughter and applause.

  The countries supporting whaling nations such as Japan and Norway are mainly those from the Caribbean (including St. Kitts and Nevis that hosted the present meeting), Africa, Asia (Mongolia and Cambodia) and the South Pacific, including Palau, Kiribati and the Solomon Islands. People in those countries have no special intention to eat whales.

  Why, then, do they support Japan? Their position is related to the assertion of the anti-whaling animal welfare groups and conservationists to totally protect not only whales but all marine species (fish) including tunas. What they are saying is tantamount to saying that humans should not use marine wildlife resources as food.

  Many of the countries supporting Japan are developing countries. They are seeking their own food in the sea and are trying to earn foreign currency through exports of marine products. They find themselves in a position where they should firmly oppose the moves to hamper the sustainable development of their resources.

  With the whale as a symbol, the IWC has now become a forum of confrontation between the groups supporting sustainable use of marine living resources and those who adamantly oppose such use. This is the North-South problem as embodied in the Commission, with the industrialized countries in the north taking the environmentalist position while the developing nations in the south being the proponents of sustainable utilization.

  Further, Greenpeace and other anti-whaling organizations are accusing that the votes of the developing countries' group supporting Japan have been bought out under Japan's official development assistance (ODA). These accusations are truly hurting the pride of these nations. Japan is extending its ODA on an equal basis to developing countries taking the anti-whaling position as well. The charge directed at those countries is off the point. The animosity against conservation groups which insult them exceeds the intensity of Japan’s feeling against those organizations.

  A resolution against the dangerous actions of Greenpeace vessels toward Japan's research vessels in the Antarctic was adopted by consensus. It meant that anti-whaling countries, on their part, could not take actions to support environmental terrorism.

  Scientific and rational consultations based on common sense should be the starting point of democracy. Japan’s proposal to host a meeting on normalizing the Commission which lacks such a basic posture was undoubtedly one of the most important moves at this meeting.