(An article originaly for "Japan Australia News" September, 2000, edited for "Whaling Library".)

Shigeko Misaki
Adviser to Japan Whaling Association

Readers might be interested to know why Japan insists on whaling, despite the ongoing "global" condemnation of its whaling. The Western world seems to accept the Greenpeace mission, which to the Western public, is to play the part of the brave eco-warrior who will save whales from extinction. Greenpeace, and other animal rights organizations mounting similar anti-whaling campaigns, have certainly succeeded in influencing many western nations' governments to adopt policies that support these organizations' positions. The "save the whale" doctrine has become their mantra. However, to the Japanese and other whaling peoples, the anti-whaling doctrine is tantamount to Ptolemic theory.

It is worth asking: does this whale-watching doctrine represent the absolute truth, or is there a hidden agenda behind this belief? Why do the protesters so persistently attack Japan in support of the "Save the Whales" cause? Has the public taken one step beyond a western urban perspective that so constrains Greenpeace and other anti-whaling organizations?

When the 52^nd IWC Annual Meeting (52/IWC) opened in Adelaide on 3^rd July, the Japanese delegation uneasily walked into the conference hall past the anti-whaling demonstrators who hoisted placards saying "Japan corrupts poor nations" and "Stop illegal whaling". Members of the Japanese delegation were also subject to attack from a majority of the Western delegations, who threw at them all manner of abuse, such as, for example "science is not necessary" (USA), "Japan makes prostitution of science" (The Netherlands), "Japan's insatiable greed for whale meat" (UK). Such emotion-laden assertions could lead to serious international confrontation, were it not for whaling. But the topic is about the whales and whaling, so it seems that in that context the opponents of whaling can direct inappropriate language toward the nation and government of Japan. Or was it not about whaling at all, but rather, an expression of a hatred toward Japan?

I have suspected that there could be a secret agenda for all that emotional abuse directed toward Japan. Even children were mustered, from Australia and overseas, to shout at the Japanese delegates "SHAME, SHAME, SHAME, for killing whales!" Such a reception hardly impressed the Japanese visitors as a welcome from a friendly trading partner, the image that Australia wishes to assume at other times.

What is IWC?
The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is an inter-governmental organization established in 1946. It is a WHALING Commission, as its name clearly states; it is not a WHALES commission. The purpose of IWC, as is clearly stated in its charter, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) is to "conserve whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry". When the organization came into being in 1948, soon after the end of World War II, there was a need for a trade cartel to control oil prices by managing whaling operations carried out by the competitive whaling industries from the major Western nations. Somewhat in a manner in which OPEC operates now, IWC in those days aimed to prevent the over-supply of oil in order to stabilize the price in the world market. Given these purposes, the ICRW was a forerunner of later conservation treaties that require biological resources to be managed on a scientific basis. ICRW also met the needs of whale meat producers like Japan, Norway and several other whaling nations.

For the first decade, however, IWC failed to manage whaling, as it did not have any competent scientific management tools. The "Olympic system", by which "first come first take the lot" was the way high seas whaling was conducted during that period. There were no computer models to enable scientists to establish the population levels from which sustainable catches could be taken. In this way, the whaling nations depleted one whale stock after another, leaving minke whales at a pristine level, because they were too small a whale for economically-viable oil production.

IWC introduced the New Management Procedure (NMP) in the 1970s, a rational approach which required whale populations to be assessed, and catch quotas established, on a stock by stock basis. The NMP was a system that used computer models. This system identified those whale stocks which required protection; these stocks were classified as "protection stocks", from which no catches were allowed.

As the depletion of many of the large whales species was so severe, the oil-producing industry declared that whales were "economically extinct", but that did not mean that whaling had caused the biological extinction of all whale species. Leaving the whaling business suited most of the oil-producing nations, because the petroleum and chemical industries had found replacements for whale oil. However, those nations that whaled for meat production continued to operate, as the market for whale meat was still economically viable, and there was no replacement for the uniqueness of whale meat.

History of Japanese whaling
Japanese history contains accounts of whaling since the time of the nation's first anthology of WAKA poems compiled in 400 AD, called MANYOUSHU, "ISANA TORI" meaning a WHALER was used as a prefix to the poems that described whaling and fishery. In the 17^th century, whaling became the first organized system for manufacturing in Japan, in which the distribution of labor as well as monetary transactions, were developed. The township of TAIJI, which prides itself today as the birthplace of Japanese whaling, is where the written documentation describing whaling operations and manufacture were recorded.

It was because of this established whaling tradition, that General Douglas MacArthur (of the Allied Occupational Forces in Japan after the World War II) ordered the Japanese authorities to send a whaling fleet to the Southern Ocean to obtain whale meat. Japan, at that time, was suffering severe food shortages due to its wartime losses of labor and its transportation system which had been severely destroyed by bombing. As a consequence, the nation lacked resources due to its wartime defeat, and several hundreds of thousands of people were expected to die from starvation. Whale meat brought back from the Antarctic became the staple protein source for the Japanese, feeding young and old, male and female, by means of a national school lunch and home-based meals. Cattle grazing has been negligible in Japan during all periods of Japanese history. This is because the topography of Japan is too mountainous for grazing, and because Buddhism prohibited eating of four-legged animals for many centuries until the Meiji restoration in the late 19^th century.

Anti-whaling rhetoric condemns Japan for valuing this tradition, it claims that whales are sacrosanct. The protesters insist that Japanese tradition be abandoned, because only a small number of people want to eat whale meat today, a time when Japan only has a fraction of whale meat compared to supplies available during the heyday of whaling many years ago. But if the supply were more plentiful, then there would certainly be many more people wishing to resume eating whale meat, particularly the people living in, or from, those communities that depended on whale meat for many centuries.

Do you oppose whaling?
Living in a country like Australia, where the prevailing sentiment strongly opposes whaling, it would be difficult for anybody to actively support whaling. I myself was a resident in Australia from 1968 to 1978, during which period my stance shifted from anti-whaling to pro-whaling. At first, I was one of these ordinary people who regarded whaling as evil and politically incorrect. I was frustrated that my own home country was a leading whaling nation.

However, my experience as an interpreter at the Scientific Committee of IWC in 1977 turned my world upside down. Working in the Scientific Committee for weeks, trying to understand the language spoken there into the small hours in the morning, I learned that but for the data diligently collected by Japanese scientists, any discussion having scientific value could not be pursued. I also learned that in the views of the international scientific community, there was no whale stocks that had been driven to extinction in the 20^th century.

Why is Japan seen as a villain?
Japan's economic growth was remarkable after the defeat and devastation suffered during World War II. However, the people in the West believe that Japan achieved its economic miracle at the cost of other nation's efforts to sustain the post-World War II peace. Japan is prohibited by its constitution from sending troops overseas. The Western nations, led by the United States, prefers to see Japan occupy a less influential role than themselves, by having this restriction on military deployment. Japan joined the group of industrialized nations after the Meiji Restoration, by working to "catch up with, and overtake the West". Although the United States helped Japan to recover from the defeat in the War, their sentiment is that Japan should never become equal to the competence of America. It is very displeasing for conservative Westerners to acknowledge that the Japanese are in any way capable of producing quality goods or to ably compete in some areas of activity. In their minds, Japan should always remain subservient. If outsmarted by Japan, they want to blame Japan instead of learning from the Japanese success. Hidden resentment that results from Japanese achievements, finds easy expression in the form of anti-whaling campaigns.

What is the bottom line?
Japan's whaling policy is based on a very straightforward rationale, which is: whales are one of the valuable food resources found in the sea. If a whale population can sustain a controlled harvest, there should be no reason to prohibit use of that food resource for human consumption.

In contrast, the majority in the West consider that whales are almost divine. Therefore, no matter what the whale population level is (which is different in the case of each stock), no whales should be taken for human consumption. If you are one of the believers of the whale-is-sacrosanct doctrine, you will loathe the Japanese position. You will think the Japanese logic is barbaric, extremely human-centric, cruel, and irrational. You can probably cite many reasons why you oppose whaling, but all these reasons stem from the "super-whale" doctrine. Based on this doctrine, there are many admirable attributes believed to belong to whales, but very few of these beliefs are supported by scientific evidence. We are told "Whales are beautiful", but beauty is a highly subjective notion, "intelligent" (so, many believe, are cows, pigs and horses) "friendly" (so are many other animals), "endangered" (some stocks are, but others are not) and "peace-loving" (how can you prove that?)

There are different stocks of whales with different population levels
People can easily make a distinction between the population sizes of elephants and rabbits; in the case of familiar terrestrial animals this is not too difficult. However, in the case of marine mammals, few are able to distinguish the different population sizes of blue whales and minke whales for example. Minke whales in the Southern Oceans had been left untouched by the whale-oil producing industry earlier in the century, so that the population has increased, taking advantage of the vacancy created by the depletion of larger whale species such as blue, fin, and other, whale species. The smaller minke whales are taking the food now abundantly available to them, and are reaching maturity at a much younger age than they did when they competed with the larger whales. Minke whales breed every year, starting around the age of 6 to 8 years, and live from 30 to 40 years. This information has been obtained by Japanese research. The population of minke whales has now increased to the extent that it is reaching the carrying capacity of its environment. When a population reaches a level exceeding its carrying capacity, then it will start to decline. Whales will die, for that is nature's way. If culled in an appropriate manner, under a science-based management procedure, the population of minke whales could be sustained at an optimal level while providing high quality protein for human consumption.

Japan's food security problem
After speaking with people recently about the whaling issue on talk-back radio, I have formed an impression that Australians are very lucky people. They are lucky because they have no problems concerning their food supplies. I remember seeing a flourishing patch of wheat where some grain had spilled from a pipe carrying grain from the thrashing plant to the container ship at an Australian port. I was amazed to see that grain grew so easily in this country, without the need for much labor.

In Japan, more than 80% of the daily food energy supply comes from overseas. Japan achieved its economic growth through sacrificing the primary industry sector. The policy in the past decades placed high priority upon development of export-oriented secondary industries. Now that Japan's economy could be stabilized with much less economic growth than we enjoyed during the past decade, Japan is looking seriously to regain its food self-sufficiency. Australia, the U.S.A. and Argentine are major suppliers of beef and grains that feed us as well as our cattle and poultry.

Minke whales are an abundant and rich protein source
One minke whale provides 15 times the amount of meat obtained from one beef animal. Based upon the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) developed by the IWC Scientific Committee (the RMP determines the allowable catch quota which will not deplete the whale population), it is possible to catch 2000 minke whales per year for one hundred years at least in the Southern Oceans. Those 2000 minke whales would be equal to the yield of beef from 30, 000 cattle per year. The area land required to graze 30,000 cattle is about 49,500 square kilometers. This area is the size of a country like Costa Rica. Within the limits of land area of Japan, it is impossible to open the land of this size for grazing without causing very severe deforestation.

The prejudice because of ignorance
While talking to the program anchor persons at the radio station, I was stunned at the level of prejudice they showed about the whaling issue. In many cases, there were speakers calling in who represented anti-whaling or animal rights groups. The anchor persons held the same opinions as the callers to the station. The opinions expressed almost followed a set pattern. These opinions included "Japan is worse than the Nazis, because they kill whales", "A rich country like Japan has no need to eat whale meat", "I can condone Norway, but not Japan", "If Japan wants to keep its tradition, go back to hand harpoons and walk instead of driving a car" and were frequently voiced.

Referencing episodes dating from the War shows the strong prejudice held against Japan. As for the opinion that a rich country has no need to eat whalemeat, I think it is like asking "France is a rich country, why do they eat snails and frogs?", or "Australia is a rich country, why do they eat kangaroos and emus?". To justify their eating of these animals and yet blame Japan, what these people appeared to say was "snails and frogs are not endangered, and Australians eat kangaroos because it is ecologically useful to do so." But the same rationale equally applies to using minke whales for food.

One opinion that was heard most frequently was, "There are only 11% of the Japanese who have eaten whale meat, so Japan should shop whaling". I would like to ask what was the source of this information. Apparently it was from a survey conducted by one of the anti-whaling organizations. However, the figure obtained from the survey carried out by the Japanese Prime Minister's office, indicated that 78% of Japanese support whaling. In the census by the PM's office, the question contained an important condition: "Do you support whaling, if whaling is conducted within the limits of a management quota that safeguards the population?". To this question, 78% of the respondents answered YES.

However, when I spoke of the Japanese figure, the anchor person told me that it was actually 1% rather than 11%. Accepting 1%, in the maximum spirit of compromise, that particular number (1,400,000) is roughly the population of Adelaide, a major Australian city. Are they saying that 1,400,000 Japanese are inferior to the same number of Australians, therefore it is justified to ignore their wishes? I think that is a racist attitude. To us, the numbers do not matter when the question concerns people, because each individual has a soul that must be respected.

What is the "world" as viewed by anti-whaling protesters?
There are 40 member nations in the IWC, of which about 14 nations oppose whaling. In another international organization, CITES, there are more than 50 nations that support whaling by Japan and Norway. When Greenpeace, IFAW and other animal rights organizations say that Japan should stop whaling because the world tells it to do so, they demonstrate their ethnocentric view that the world consists of only those Western countries that oppose whaling in the IWC.

What of Caribbean votes?
There is widespread propaganda that some Caribbean nations have sold their votes to Japan. Japan gives development assistance to as many as 150 countries around the world, and it so happens that these Caribbean nations are among the recipients of this assistance. The Caribbean nations at IWC have studied the whaling issue and have come to understand that their position is the same as Japan's, namely supporting the sustainable use of natural resources. That is why they have chosen to speak strongly in support of whaling at IWC and vote in support of Japan and Norway. On the other hand, if all 150 countries that receive Japanese aid were to join IWC and vote in support of Japan, the IWC would have been a different place altogether. However, in reality only a few of the recipients have joined IWC and some of them almost always oppose Japan in voting, for example, Argentine and India.

If you believe what the anti-whaling propaganda tells you about a contrived set up in which an anti-government advocate from Grenada spoke to the press in Adelaide, the story behind Caribbean IWC membership may interest you.

In 1981, only a year before the proposal for a moratorium on commercial whaling was voted on at IWC, two Caribbean nations joined IWC. Both voted for the moratorium, which was adopted by a margin of only one vote. Those representatives, acting as Commissioners for St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, were not nationals of these countries, but were an American and a British activist associated with anti-whaling organizations. Suspicion emerged about the authenticity of their credentials presented to IWC in support of their appointment as Commissioners. These surrogate Commissioners explained that the credentials were issued by legations outside of the home country.

After the moratorium was passed, humpback whales were caught off the island of Bequia by a national of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. This catch was reported to the IWC Infraction Sub-Committee. The surrogate Commissioner could not explain the situation surrounding this whale hunt in the country which he represented. Neither did he try to defend the whaler or claim the hunt was authorized by "his" government.

After 1982, the government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines appointed a new Commissioner to the IWC, a world-famous opera singer from the St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Ms. Gloria Peningsfeldt. This new Commissioner, appointed by her home government, approached Japan and asked for support for a proposal to classify Bequian whaling as Aboriginal/Subsistence Whaling, a category accepted by IWC. The proposal was approved, and Bequian whaling has continued to this day.

In 1984, it was determined that the surrogate Commissioner for St. Lucia, Dr. Francisco Palacio, had presented forged credentials to the IWC and he was dispelled by the Commission. After he left, St. Lucia appointed a new Commissioner with true credential from his government.

The Caribbean nations are independent states, whose future depends heavily upon the development of their fisheries. Their economy has largely depended upon the export of bananas and spices to the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe. However, since the U.K. joined the EC, these Caribbean nations have lost their preferential trade status that favored their exports into the UK.

Japan is an island nation dependent on fisheries resources. So are the Caribbean nations. These people have traditionally used what they call "Black Fish", which is the pilot whale. They also utilize as much other wildlife as is available to them for food in their limited environment. Japan gives development assistance to those island nations whose marine resources have the potential for sustainable development.

What is a loophole?
Anti-whaling rhetoric always points to "loopholes" in the Convention which Japan is accused of exploiting. The definition provided in the Oxford Dictionary indicates that a loophole is "a way of evading rule or contract...especially through an omission or inexact wording in its provision". If this is a correct understanding, then Japanese research is not exploiting any loophole. Article VIII of the ICRW clearly provides that "notwithstanding other provisions of the Contention, any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take, and treat whales for purposes of scientific research. Any whales taken under these permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with the direction issued by the Government by which the permit was granted." Japan conducts research whaling, the purpose and method for which are reported to the Scientific Committee, which Committee has reviewed the program and recognized its scientific value. The proceeds from the sale of the by-product of the sampled whales are used to fund the subsequent research program. There is nothing in this course of action by Japan that evades any provision of the ICRW, consequently no "loophole" is being exploited.

Whale watching is a loophole industry
It is strange that anti-whaling groups in the IWC rave about whale watching as a sustainable use of whales. There is no provision in the ICRW to support or prohibit whale watching. In this sense, whale watching is a industry using a "loophole" of the Convention. Japan does not deny that whale watching is one way of using whales. However, science-based guidelines would be desirable in order to establish this tourist industry on a more reasonable basis: the targeted animals should be free to act naturally without any disturbance to their breeding or feeding activities.

Some Australian media changed their reporting stance
As the talk-back radio program and our website became noticed around the time of 52/IWC in Adelaide, we noted that some Australian media started to report on our points of view. Although the majority of the media are still very much against Japan, we did notice that some papers invited us to write directly for their columns, or demonstrated a more balanced reporting. Although most of them kept using sensational headlines that favored an anti-whaling stance, their articles sometimes reported our points of view. This was the result of our joint effort with a public relations company engaged to disseminate our perspectives concerning issues arising at 52/IWC.

Copyright S. Misaki. Reproduction of any part hereof is prohibited without permission from the Author.

_