If Science Does Not Support It...

(from "Kujira to Inbou" (Whales and Plots), by Yoshito Umezaki, 1986)


In April, 1972, both the House of Representatives and the Senate adopted a joint resolution for the ten-year ban of whaling. Prior to this, the House of Representatives invited whale scientists such as McHugh and Chapman and questioned them about the status of whale resources. At this time, both of them testified that five species of depleted large whales had already been protected by the IWC and the remaining four species were under strict regulation.

From the conclusion at the Shenandoah symposium and testimonies by McHugh and Chapman, the planners of the US whaling policy must have known that the story of whale extinction, as insisted upon by Project Jonah, was groundless.

On the other hand, McIntyre was disappointed with the outcome of the Shenandoah symposium and sent letters to whale scientists and well-known people in the world, requesting signatures to oppose the whaling. But the reaction was slow. Only about 100 signatures came from such as US politicians, novelists, and musicians. Among Japanese, only Seiji Ozawa (a conductor) responded. No scientists who attended the Shenandoah symposium responded.

The US government then wished for support from authoritative organizations or international organizations, and approached the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, headed in Geneva). The headquarters of the IUCN questioned its special scientific section, which was comprised of whale scientists and zoologists, about the whaling ban. The outcome was "There is no scientific basis for immediately banning the catch of all species of whales." However, the headquarters then announced that the IUCN would support a ten-year moratorium of commercial whaling. To the protestation by the scientific section, which was surprised at the announcement, the secretary general flatly responded: "The decision of the IUCN is not bound by the recommendations of its lower level sections." After all, the USA had to attend the Stockholm conference with support from the IUCN which was given ignoring the report of its special scientific section.

When there is no support from the scientists, then ignore the science and appeal emotionally, and then steamroll with political power - it was quite natural that the US government had to choose such tactics. "Whales are threatened with extinction", "Whales are the symbol of environmental protection", "Whales exist not for the economy but for the ecosystem", such appeals sounded beautiful in the atmosphere of the Stockholm conference. The Japanese insistence that "Only the depleted whales should be the target of the ban" did not succeed in the atmosphere of 'environment first' at the conference site in Stockholm.

"Looking back, it was quite natural that the USA won at Stockholm. Since it was an issue of political interest, careful preparation and tactics, and also rapid action and funds went with it. Because of the points that the second committee scheduled on June 8th was suddenly deferred to the 9th and that the situation was changed in one day through a high-level diplomatic channel, I cannot help acknowledging the strong power of the USA. It could be achieved only by the USA bringing around the representative of Kenya - chairman of the second committee - and Maurice Strong - the secretary general of the conference. The UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) which was established in 1973 to carry out the resolutions of the conference had headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya and Strong became its first secretary general. This meant Stockholm and UNEP formed a pair."
- Kunio Yonezawa

It was at the second committee - a committee for the environmental aspects of the management of natural resources - where the whaling issue was discussed. The representative of Kenya chaired the committee and handled the discussion with an attitude completely anti-whaling. Also, the secretary general, Maurice Strong (Canadian), who gave a famous speech: "If we cannot save the whales how can we save the earth..." was one of the people who worked hard for adoption of the moratorium. Locating the headquarters of the UNEP in Nairobi, and the assignment of M. Strong as the secretary general of the UNEP - it was a grant of honors according to the merits of the issue. Only USA could perform that.

Besides the fierce power of the USA which manipulated the large international conference, we shouldn't overlook the influence of the UK. The Commonwealth has 54 member nations. Among the 159 members of the United Nations, it exceeds one third (as of January 1986). If 54 nations unite, they can manipulate an international conference as they want. At Stockholm, the moratorium was adopted according to the attitude of the UK. Until June 8th, about 60 nations including the UK seemed to support Japan. But on the next day, the UK changed to supporting the USA and only two nations supported Japan after all. This was because not only the UK but also the other Commonwealth nations such as Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Kenya, and India changed to support the USA. Among the 53 nations which voted for the moratorium, the member nations of the Commonwealth exceeded half that number.

The USA and its brother the UK and its relative nations in the Commonwealth - they can communicate quite smoothly. It is because the UK has so many 'relative' nations that it still maintains influence in international politics. For Japan who had no friend in the world, it was a matter of course that it lost at the Stockholm conference.

_