The South African government's refusal to support the International Whaling Commission's ban on commercial whaling is curious. Fortunately our abstention from the vote had no effect on the outcome, as the moratorium was achieved by a healthy majority of 25 member nations to seven. But why did South Africa have to be listed among the five countries which abstained from the ballot? We no longer kill whales ourselves. The ban will in no way affect the country's economy or the employment of South Africans. Here was an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that we support the conservation of wild life on an international scale. Yet we shrank from committing ourselves to the preservation of those whales which have not yet become extinct. Dr Anton Rupert, president of the South African Nature Foundation, is as much puzzled as we are, "I fail to see what benefit we will get from not voting for a moratorium, especially as we are not a whaling nation," he said in telegrams to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Fisheries.

A spokesman for the Department of Foreign Affairs said South Africa's vote was determined by "scientific evidence and conservation attitudes". That statement is not only, in the circumstances, meaningless but appears to contradict our refusal to support the whaling ban. Scientific evidence already points to the extinction, or near extinction, of several species. Conservation attitudes are overwhelmingly in favour of the moratorium. Possibly more to the point was the spokesman's admission that "political considerations were also taken into account in the decision-making". What political considerations? Has South Africa done a deal with Japan, now one of the main culprits in the slaughter of whales? Perhaps an avowed marine conservationist, Mr John Wiley, newly-appointed Deputy Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, could explain the mystery.

_