(from "Public Perception of Whaling", ICR, 1994)

Shigeko Misaki
Counselor, International Relations,
Institute of Cetacean Research

The Rules of the Game

When Japan deals with the West, the process of negotiation is often likened to a baseball game. Problems arise from the very basis of the concept in that yakyuu (baseball) is not exactly synonymous with "baseball." Both sides suppose they are playing according to the same rules, but the game develops into a maze of misunderstanding.

In the whaling controversy, the game seems almost over. There are no runners except Japan, and there is an air of apathy hanging over the field. The scoreboard shows 10 for the opponent and only one run for Japan - just enough to keep the game going. With amazing resilience Japan has been playing a never-ending game called "the whaling controversy."

The game started in 1972 in Stockholm when the United Nations Human Environment Conference adopted a resolution calling for a 10-year moratorium on commercial whaling. The key words were "Save the Whales"; this game moved its venue to the International Whaling Commission (IWC), and the cheering squad for the team of the Americans and the "like-minded" increased by leaps and bounds. Outside the arena the anti-whaling team was passionately backed by most Western countries, while on the other side only a few nations remained on the whalers' team.

The problem with this game is that rules are determined by the winner, although the loser desperately asks that the game should be played according to the basic tenet, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW).

The first part of the game was played using the rule of "extinction" overruling the biological differences of whale stocks, among which many had been exploited to the level of severe depletion, while a few others showed signs of growth. This rule, coupled with another called "uncertainties" lasted for a decade until 1982 when the IWC adopted a moratorium for all commercial whaling. Then the rule was changed to that which was conceived as "ethics." However, this rule is only applicable to whales and not to human beings, so the time is now set to play the game according to "ethics," the criteria for which are determined by the "like-minded" nations.

The "like-minded" team, united under the anti-whaling ethic, insists that not a single whale, no matter what species or from what stock, should be killed for human consumption.

If the rule is "ethics," then let me look back at the view of ethical conduct of what actually has happened in front of my eyes over the 16 years of my involvement with the Japanese delegation to the IWC. Have the "like-minded" players always been acting ethically in every aspect of the game? Or has Japan, typecast as a villain, committed something fatally wrong?

Let me begin with my experience since 1977, when for the first time I became involved in the whaling controversy game.

Chapter I

Whaling Lawsuit 1985-1986

When the IWC adopted a moratorium for all commercial whaling in 1982 irrespective of the different population status of whale stocks, Japan, the U.S.S.R., Norway, Iceland, and Korea lodged objections to the decision pursuant to Article V(3)(a), providing that any contracting government that lodges an objection to any IWC decision within 90 days from the notification of the decision becomes legally exempted from the relevant decision. Oddly enough, this exemption clause in the Convention was adopted in the ICRW after the United States avidly proposed it in 1946 when the ICRW was drafted.

Japan filed an objection because it did not see a scientific basis for the blanket moratorium which the IWC's own Scientific Committee did not recommend, and any whale stocks that had shown any signs of depletion were already classified as Protection Stocks by the New Management Procedure (NMP) and catches from those Protection Stocks were prohibited. The only sizable exploitation of any whale stocks that Japan was engaged in at that time was Antarctic minke whales, the population level of which was assessed as robust by the IWC Scientific Committee. The Scientific Committee had recommended to the IWC in that same year a catch limit for the range between 2,467 and 9,867 minke whales.

The U.S. government saw this action by Japan as offensive, and threatened Japan with the U.S. domestic statute commonly known as the Packwood/Magnuson Amendment. Unless Japan withdrew its objection from the IWC, the threat was to impose an economic sanction on Japan by terminating the fishing rights then agreed to by the U.S. and Japanese governments for the Japanese fishing of bottom fish^* species within the U.S. 200-mile zone.

After a succession of back-and-forth negotiations between the two governments, in 1985 a letter was exchanged between the U.S. Secretary of Commerce Malcolm Baldridge and Minister Murazumi of the Japanese Embassy in Washington (known as the Murazumi-Baldridge Agreement). In this letter it was agreed that Japan would withdraw its objection in a two-year grace period to avoid U.S. economic sanctions.

Alarmed by this bilateral compromise, many anti-whaling organizations in the United States together sued the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of State demanding that they nullify this agreement and impose economic sanctions against Japan. The case was first brought to the District Court of Columbia with the Japan Whaling Association joining the defendant as an intervener. The U.S. Administration lost the case on March 5, 1985. The case was then brought up to the higher courts where the defendant again lost the case, and finally in June 1986 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, by a margin of one, that the bilateral agreement was valid.

In retrospect, this lawsuit could have been planned by both anti-whaling organizations and the U.S. Administration. Whatever the final verdict, Japan's objection to the IWC was legal under the ICRW, an international law. But the case proceeded in such a way that two courts prior to the Supreme Court made it clear that a U.S. domestic statute supersedes international agreements; in this case the Murazumi/Baldridge Agreement between Japan and the U.S. Perhaps the hidden agenda for such litigation was to show Japan that the rule of the winning side overrules any bilateral agreement, thus the cost of being a legal intervener damages the finances of the Japanese whaling industry which was already in decline; the money that JWA had to spend for this case exceeded 300 million yen.

"When animal protection goes this far, it's called 'humaniac'," was a personal comment by an American lawyer during the litigation known as the "whaling lawsuit." "Humaniac" is a new word which combines "humanism" and "maniac," yet it seems odd using it to describe anti-whaling.

On March 5, 1985, the anti-whaling groups as plaintiff and Malcolm Baldridge as defendant, in the so-called whaling lawsuit held in the District Court in the District of Columbia, received the verdict nullifying the Murazumi/Baldridge Agreement. Of Judge Ritchie's remarks at the time of his decision, his statement, "At this very moment while this trial is continuing, the precious lives of whales are being lost," left a lasting impression. This kind of remark, the reflecting of the general opinion of the American public in a judge who is supposed to show impartiality, is beyond the limits of our comprehension. If we substituted people for whales in his statement, then perhaps it would be acceptable; however, since the subject here is whales, we cannot help but be surprised by the depth of the gap between the U.S. and Japan in consciousness and the difference in opinion of the basis for right and wrong.

The verdict showed me that underlying it was a different ethical standard between that of the U.S. and that of Japan. The verdict was only a sign of this difference. What I was more concerned about was the basis on which the whaling issue was debated in the West.

Chapter II

How Whales Became a Symbol

It is neither the scientific basis nor the rationale of the issue which is causing Japan to lose ground, but rather it is public image, or the skill for creating it by the anti-whaling lobby centered in the U.S. Equating whales with people was a tactic adopted by skilled public relations specialists which led the general public to leap into action responding to it. Under massive, multifaceted fund raising and public relations campaigns, interest groups, governments, and scientists became active in the movement. Yet, I wonder if perhaps the general public in those countries were not the only ones moved. When the case was reported in Japan it planted a seed of deep resentment. There were reports of incidents such as blood-colored dye being thrown in the faces of the Japanese delegation to the IWC by anti-whaling groups. I happened to have had red dye sprayed all over my dress in 1978 during a recess of the plenary meeting of the IWC Annual Meeting, and my "blood-drenched figure" appeared without my knowledge on BBC TV that day. While these insults are certainly irritating, they are no more than the tip of an enormous iceberg.

The same dye-spraying strategy was inflicted upon me again in 1981 just outside the conference venue in Brighton; then there was an incident in which I and my Japanese colleague were spat at, on the street in front of the conference hall in Bournemouth in 1985 by a man saying, "You bloody whale eaters!" Although the top level in anti-whaling groups always sent written apologies at such times, when we met face to face, they simply commented, "This incident is truly regrettable, but we have nothing to do with those people. Please report it to security." There has to be something behind this contradiction. Paradoxically, while on the one hand there are anti-whaling individuals who would go so far as to throw red dye and spit on someone and are inspired to act without having any idea about the biological realities of whales, on the other hand there are the genuine whale-loving supporters, making up the bulk of the support for the movement, who behave in an altogether different manner.

It might be noted that in the U.S. and Europe over US $ 50 million is spent on anti-whaling advertising annually. Half or more is donated by the innocent public. The interesting part comes when the anti-whaling groups, who are supposed to love whales, mournfully comment that, "No matter how much we protect them, whales are decreasing" a sentiment which strikes a powerful chord with the general public. Why are they happy when the animals they love are on the decline? The reason lies solely in the fact that the strength of the anti-whaling campaign relies heavily on the fallacy that all whale species and stocks are endangered. In recent years, when science proved that minke whales in the Antarctic were numerous and in healthy condition, the rule of the anti-whaling powers changed from "extinction" to "uncertainty" thus denying the work of credible scientists working hard toward the rational management of whale stocks.

In 1982 the blanket moratorium on commercial whaling included all species of whales, from truly endangered blue whales to even minke whales which, by the most conservative estimates of the Scientific Committee of the IWC, are confirmed to number close to half a million in the Antarctic Ocean alone. The general public believed these whales were on the verge of extinction, and donations were solicited to try and prevent the supposed decline.

There was a time when I was living in Sydney, Australia and did not know any of the details about whales or whaling. I even threw a dollar into the donation box, in June of 1977, my ninth year in Australia. It was a Saturday morning at a shopping center bustling with young people released from a long week's work. A placard proclaiming "Save the Whales" was placed on a table in a bright and sunny courtyard. A huge balloon shaped like a whale hovered above, and on a large photo of a whale with its tail waving as it dived under the waves, ran the copy, "The highly intelligent, peaceful friend of mankind." Off to the side there was a stack of pamphlets and a young girl selling buttons to people walking by. If you gave a dollar, you would get a button. "Save the Whales" car stickers were also popular.

On television that morning, I saw that the "Save the Whales" movement had truly arrived in Sydney. There was an interview with a representative on a morning talk show. The woman reporter's excited and all too emotional voice began "People who love nature are on the increase. Man has finally awakened to the danger facing the world. Whales are great wild animals which represent that nature. Here in Sydney many people have bravely volunteered for the admirable campaign 'Save the Whales.' Let's go to our reporter for details." On the screen, a bearded man, with features that closely resembled depictions of Jesus, slowly began his explanation in a deep voice. "Whales are splendid animals. During the evolutionary process, whales moved from the land to the oceans. If they had remained on land, they would no doubt have evolved just like man. Whales have a magnificently constructed brain and are the most peaceful of all the mammals. As the result of man's indiscriminate hunting, this dear friend is now nearly extinct. The time has come for us to eradicate the shameful practice of whaling from the face of the earth so that whales can be saved." The bearded man lowered his voice and continued. "There are still some countries who continue to practice whaling. They must be made to stop their disgraceful behavior immediately."

There was a charisma in his voice that moved his listeners' hearts. What's more, the woman reporter's face bore an intent, purposeful expression which was exceedingly persuasive. In conclusion, she added, "In a few weeks, the Annual Meeting of the IWC will be held in our nation's capital, Canberra. There are very few whales left in the world. Let's pray that this inter-governmental organization will save the whales."

After watching that program, I was one of the thousands of people who put a dollar in the contribution box and got a pamphlet. Somewhere in my heart, I felt a small sense of purpose for giving to such an admirable nature protection cause. I was also interested in the "Save the Whales" stickers that were on so many cars in Sydney.

Chapter III

New Management Procedure until 1986

A few days after my first encounter with the "Save the Whales" movement, I was asked to be the interpreter for the Japanese delegation to the IWC's Scientific Committee prior to the Annual Meeting in Canberra. I set off for Canberra, with no expectations and knowing nothing of the details of Japanese whaling. I wondered what position the Japanese scientific delegation would take. At that point, I had no way of knowing that I would be working for them for the next 16 years. Let me try to remember how that meeting impressed an outsider like me.

The meeting was held at the Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organization in Canberra in June, the beginning of winter in the southern hemisphere. The chair of the meeting was Dr. K. Radway Allen, the Australian scholar who had proposed the scientific resource management procedure, known as the New Management Procedure (NMP), to the IWC. There were 13 member nations¹ in the Scientific Committee at that time, in addition to representatives from intergovernmental organizations, such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), making 35 delegates in all. I spent every day sitting next to the five scientists from Japan in a nightmare-like state, trying to understand the internal power plays, and the wide array of incomprehensible scientific jargon.

The first thing I noticed was that the countries then engaged in commercial whaling were non-English-speaking countries (with the exception of Australia, which was still whaling at that time). Nonetheless, all dialogue was carried out in English in "free discussion" style. This inevitably put the Japanese at a disadvantage. In addition, only one representative from each whaling country was allowed to make representations whereas each representative from anti-whaling countries, as well as those representing intergovernmental organizations, was heard individually; these delegates made up the majority. Representatives of the anti-whaling side were nearly all native speakers of English; many were eloquent scientists who harshly and bombastically refuted Japan's opinions and argued strongly and tenaciously until late into the night. Particularly eloquent were a number of English scholars. One said, "For me, whales are nothing more than X." From start to finish he speculated on whether the whale populations were exhausted and his swift debate was much like a prosecutor shooting arguments across a courtroom. Even though in the minority, as well as having the handicap of not being native speakers of English, Japan was the country who was the most vocal, presented the most papers and offered the most data for the scientific discussions.

The meeting then split into subcommittees. Delegates were grouped by the different species and stocks of whales, the various stocks were studied and population estimates were made. I hadn't known that whales could be divided into various species and stocks. Even a layperson like myself knew that whales could first be largely divided into toothed whales and baleen whales. But my knowledge about whales was so limited that I was amazed to hear that there were 80 different types of toothed whales and 10 different types of baleen whales. Research and estimates were made about whales which had historically been used by man. Of these the most widely-known is the sperm Whale, the largest of the toothed whales, followed by the blue whale, the largest of all whales and the largest mammal. There are also fin whales, right whales, sei whales, bryde's whales, humpback whales, minke whales, bowhead whales, and gray whales. They are all baleen whales. I thought these were rather like the various human ethnic groups, such as Asians, Europeans, Africans, etc. As there are differences in nationality and race among the same ethnic groups, the same is true for whales. There are numerous stocks among the many whale species. Whales form groups like migrating birds and migrate seasonally in search of food. After returning to warmer breeding grounds, they breed only within the same stock and do not really mix with whales from other stocks. Man is also divided into many "stocks" by nationality and race. The IWC's New Management Procedure proposed the concept of managing each of the different stocks on a stock-by-stock basis. This concept was far more sensible as well as precautionary against the danger of depletion, than the previous "Olympic" whaling method by which serious depletion resulted. The procedure monitored in 1977 the populations of 82 stocks from 11 species in the world's oceans.

At the meeting in 1977, of all the stocks, the males and females of the sperm whale stocks were being studied most closely. The reasoning is that sperm whales have a complicated mode of life using a harem system, where in general a school of about 15 females follow one male. There are also small schools of mature males older than about nine years of age, called "lone bulls," that live away from harems.

At that year's meeting, as a result of the study of these 82 stocks, the catching of 55 stocks was completely banned. Of the remaining 27 stocks, 13 of which were sperm whales, there were four stocks for which catch limits were zero for both males and females. Therefore, permission was only given to harvest from certain stocks where it was considered that the population had sufficient reproductive capacity.

If whales are left alone, they do not increase infinitely. When they reach the maximum level sustainable by the environment in which they live, their food boundaries and mode of life limit their further increase. The population level at which the most effective reproductive condition can be achieved is referred to as the Maximum Sustainable Yield Level (MSYL). If we say that 100% is the unexploited level when there was no contact with man, 60% of that unexploited level is the MSYL and 4% of that is the allowable catch under the New Management Procedure.

As I was deciphering this type of information throughout the progress of the meeting, I began to regret the ignorance with which I had given that dollar a few weeks before when I believed all the whales were in danger of becoming extinct because of the "Save the Whales" campaign. Even the discussions of these scientists, including those from the anti-whaling lobby, made it clear that there were no species that had become extinct. Rather, if there had been a danger of that happening, recommendations for the complete protection of the species in question would have been recommended by the IWC Scientific Committee to the Commission, who would immediately prohibit exploitation of such stocks.

However, the danger was not to the whales, but rather to the whaling industry. Even though whaling was conducted within safe parameters among the five designated species², the many scientists representing the anti-whaling side who attended the meeting that year were determined to prohibit the hunting of each of those species, one by one. Their biggest weapon was, ironically enough, the New Management Procedure which aims to manage and sustain whale populations and adopts the premise that whaling should continue for a long time with precautions to safeguard whales from depletion. In their arsenal was a computer which harbored a magical mathematical manipulation. Just by changing some correction parameters in the mathematical model, even a large population obviously confirmed at sea by sight could, strangely enough, be made to look like a sad population on the verge of extinction.

For example, Japanese coastal whaling of the sperm whale population in the north Pacific Ocean represented the only means of livelihood for some 50,000 people. However, the anti-whaling lobby seemed to target this fact and took pains to amplify the estimate of the ratio between the current population level and the unexploited level, and 1977 was the year when this strategy of changing the ratio was conveniently used. That year the model mutually agreed upon to estimate populations was the C.H. Pop model³. If we say that 100% was the maximum sustainable level required by the model, the population level was 46% (which falls within the guidelines of the New Management Procedure).

Japan presented data taken from actual catches and, although the model was run, the correction factor in the computer program caused serious antagonism between the anti-whaling scientists and the Japanese side. This antagonism stemmed from use of a whale-seeking device called an ASDIC by some of the Japanese whalers since 1960, which was thought to be reflected in the Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE)⁴. The opposition wondered how to determine the correction factor to apply to the model for improving whaling efficiency.

ASDIC is an echo-sounding device used to locate whales, but it can only detect them at depths up to 800 meters. Thus, once a whale was sighted the ship would approach it, and if the whale dived, the device was used to find the actual location of the whale. Even though the Japanese side explained the actual usage of this device over and over again, their opponents kept insisting that it was like radar, which was capable of detecting whales out of the range of visibility, without taking into account any of the Japanese explanations. They insisted that whales could be located from a distance of 12 kilometers if ASDIC was used. Thus a correction factor, that is, an efficiency improvement factor of 40%, which reflected the anti-whaling opinions, was put into the program. Japanese scientists went about the uphill task of minutely reexamining the data, but when they compared those ships equipped with the device and those without, they found that there was only a maximum of 18% improvement.

When the parameter value of 40% for the correction factor of efficiency improvement insisted upon by anti-whaling groups was put into the computer, the population estimates for that year numbered 69,000 males and 127,000 females. When compared to the 170,000 males and 160,000 females of the unexploited levels of 1947, males represented 4l% of the unexploited levels and females 78%. Since the required MSYL for the model outlined above is 46%, and the population estimate for males came in below that, it can be said that the males have been completely protected. Again it might be noted that results calculated by Japanese scientists using the same model numbered 132,000 males and 240,000 females for the current population.

This incident remains in the records as a clear example of the anti-whaling lobby's method of steamrolling the majority's opinion and is a pattern seen every year since then in the Scientific Committee meeting. As for the sperm whales in the North Pacific, although a moratorium on whaling by factory ship without any scientific rationale was passed by the Commission in the following year, 1978, and regardless of the complete ban on whaling of the population of the eastern stocks, the whaling of the western stocks will continue to be a topic of disagreement for many years to come. That a new model was being developed by both sides, however, results from the fact that the computer that contains the program with the errors was being pushed by the anti-whaling side. There was even an open rumor among the scientists that an anti-whaling mathematician was hacking data from the Japanese program, and jokes about the naivete of the Japanese being unable to prove such malpractice by the opponent. Although the fact that the males were moving into the Bering Sea and other such drawbacks were pointed out, the anti-whaling lobby swayed the majority in their favor. Citing budgetary constraints, validation of the model developed by the Japanese side was not even carried out until the meeting in 1985, one year before the moratorium for all commercial whaling came into effect.

The sperm whale case was but one example of how the tactics employed by the anti-whaling scientists worked to discredit the effectiveness of the New Management Procedure and justified the logic of "scientific uncertainty" which was the basis for the adoption by the IWC of the moratorium for all commercial whaling in 1982.

Chapter IV

Japan's Image Problem

Japan is often referred to as "a nation without a face." In the case of the whaling controversy, however, its face is definitely that of a villain, a character skillfully created by the Western media.

In October of 1984 there was a curious case of misinformation about the Japan/U.S. Whaling Agreement in the foreign press. Where it should have said, "the 200-mile zone of the Japanese coast," it said rather that, "triggering of the Packwood/Magnuson Fisheries Conservation & Management Act is being considered as a way of imposing sanctions on the Japanese capturing of sperm whales within the 200-mile FCZ of American coastal waters." All the English newspapers in Japan also ran this version. Any person reading this without knowing the facts about whaling would of course be swayed. When I spoke to a reporter of the English-language newspaper pointing out this error, he said to me, "Japanese go to catch not only fish, but whales as well within the 200-mile American coastal waters, don't they?" When I pointed out that it was a mistake and was supposed to say the 200-mile zone of the Japanese coastal waters, he said, "No, it's probably not a mistake. Japan is blatantly catching whales under the Americans' noses. It's because of this thievery that the Americans are using these laws to impose sanctions on Japan." I just wonder if that sort of error was a deliberate means of propaganda.

This kind of misunderstanding about whales is widely prevalent among non-Japanese. This is perhaps natural since, aside from not having Japan's position correctly conveyed to them, they have been brainwashed with declarations and skillful propaganda from the anti-whaling lobby that whales are on the verge of extinction. For them, Japan is always cast as the villain when it comes to whales. In the U.S. and other Western countries, the young people who were elementary and junior high school students in the late 1960s and early 1970s, who struggled with the quagmire of the Vietnam War and then wrestled with anti-establishment ideas, have been lured to take up the anti-whaling side. Anti-war sentiments became linked with anti-nuclear sentiments and various anti-nuclear organizations, such as Greenpeace, were born. Subsequently, these anti-establishment NGOs took a strong stance against whaling, using whales as the symbol of endangered nature for which mankind had to be condemned.

In the 1970s, the American Congress welcomed young staff with anti-establishment tendencies and supported youth who had been active in the anti-war movement against actions taken by the United States in Vietnam. Using these staff members and the information they had gathered, the energy of the anti-establishment was harnessed and transferred to the environmental protection movement, which is sensitive to the danger to the environment and which took up whales as a symbol. Logically, the environmental movement should be concerned with nuclear warheads and chemical warfare. Replacing this concern with whales was an ingenious move in American policy. So, exactly why have whales become a symbol?

Chapter V

National Interests and Whales

The belief in a "whale crisis" stems, I believe, from a need for forgiveness, fanned by the guilty conscience of the general public of the West, which in turn is closely linked to specific national interests.

Any serious student of history knows that in their conquest of the oceans of the world, the Yankee whalers played a central role in the development of the United States from the beginning of the 18th to the second half of the 19th century. During this golden age of whaling, more than 700 Yankee whaling ships plied the oceans in search of whale oil and baleen, venturing as far as the Indian Ocean, the South Pacific and even the Pacific Coast of Japan. It is no doubt unnecessary to reiterate the fact that these whalers had a great deal to do with the arrival of Commodore Perry's "Black Ships" into the harbor of Uraga, Japan in 1853, the impact of which spurred critical changes in the political system of feudal Japan. The Black Ships, or Kurofune, were the direct cause for the opening of Japan to the West.

Until oil was discovered in the U.S., whale oil was indispensable for both candles and lamp oil. At the beginning of the 20th century, whale oil began to be used in margarine, cosmetics, and other luxury items while maintaining its dominance as a machine oil which could withstand temperatures to -40°C.

Until well into the 1950s, whale oil was still an essential commodity clear in the memories of such organizations as General Motors and even the United States Navy. However, with the development of a rival artificial oil by the company Sun Oil, in Pennsylvania in the 1960s, whale oil was no longer necessary to the Americans. Moreover, because of the rapid depletion of the large whales by competitive whaling in the mid-1960s, other Western nations also stopped whaling in the Antarctic Ocean. First the United Kingdom stopped in 1963, followed by the Netherlands in 1964 and then Norway in 1970. Only Japan and the former Soviet Union were left working in this ocean. These withdrawals occurred because whaling was no longer economically viable for the major whaling nations except Japan and the former U.S.S.R., since the product of the exercise was whale oil while the equally profitable whale meat was discarded into the sea.

Whether or not the great depletion of whales resulting from the over-exploitation of the large whales was also a factor still remains to be seen, but it is a fact that the industry only remained profitable for Japan because Japanese utilized the meat for human consumption as well as other products such as whale oil.

In North America, therefore, whales were seen not only as a very important animal because of their role in America's past prosperity, but they also became the very embodiment of each individual's sense of guilt at causing severe depletion of whales by the whaling industry. There was, however, a more pragmatic reason - whaling products, particularly whale oil, were no longer necessary. It also makes sense that the oil industry, only just developing, could use its power to dwindle the use of competitive products. After all America in the first half of the 20th century was quickly rising as a major controller of the oil producers.

During the 1970s, using the whale as its symbol, the anti-whaling movement skillfully worked its way into the system, providing an outlet for the spirit which had fed the anti-war movement. The radical young enthusiasts of such anti-whaling movements as Greenpeace, joined forces with well-heeled animal enthusiasts ("humaniacs") who had already become quite prominent in the West and began broadcasting this perception of a "whale crisis."

Gregory Peck, who had played the lead role of the captain in the movie Moby Dick, appeared on television sponsored by the anti-whaling lobby confessing his feelings of guilt at having killed the great white whale, and the folk singer John Denver attended the opening ceremony of the IWC meeting to sing the "Hymn to the Whales." Every day thousands of school children from all over the U.S. write letters to the IWC secretariat or to the Japanese embassy. All the letters contain the plea, "Please save the whales. Please stop the Japanese from killing whales." These children are probably only writing what their teachers tell them to, and the teachers for their part probably only teach them these things because they themselves believe that whales are on the very brink of extinction. Millions of children throughout Europe and the U.S. have grown up believing that Japan is the very embodiment of evil. This is one of the reasons why Japan faces so many difficulties in the international community. For as long as there is "a Japan that relentlessly insists upon killing whales that are in danger of extinction," the general public and the rich animal enthusiasts will continue to donate their money generously.

Moreover, prior to the UN Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm, the anti-whaling movement, already firmly established within the system, pushed a moratorium on commercial whaling through the U.S. Congress, and have since continued to put pressure on the IWC by voting for an extension on this decision every year since then. Finally, in 1982, by sending a number of U.S. nationals who represent the anti-whaling movement to the various island nations of the Caribbean, the anti-whaling lobby increased their delegate rights, and thus managed to push through a total moratorium with a three-quarter majority by a margin of one.

All these groups - the "professional" members of the anti-whaling movement, the general public who support them without really knowing much about the actual conditions of the whale populations, the wealthy animal enthusiasts, and the scientists whose research is funded by the anti-whaling lobby - are working together through various different forums in a superbly orchestrated attack on Japan. It was against this background that the U.S. Congress passed the Packwood/Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act in 1979⁵, with the clear aim of imposing sanctions on the Japanese whaling and fishing industries.

Chapter VI

Difficulties Facing Japan

What sort of image was Japan trying to give at that time? During the Vietnam War years, I once heard a joke which I found quite symbolic of the public image of Japan around that period. "The U.S. went to fight the Viet Cong but Japan went to sell their electronic products in the Post Exchange. Which one do you think was the winner? Japan of course! Why? Because they even sold their products to the Viet Cong." This joke evokes the image of a Japan only interested in making a financial profit - though of course never getting its hands dirty. At that time, the tankers bringing crude oil to Japan had to pass through the Straits of Malacca, which was devotedly guarded by the Australian military. Every time there was a report about one of these tankers spilling oil or causing some oceanic pollution, I saw letters to the editor in the Australian newspapers asking such questions as, "Why do we have to send our young men to Malacca to help Japan?" More disgusting to me was the fact that these incidents rarely found their way to any news coverage by the Japanese press. I think it is because the Japanese press is basically allergic to discussions related to its constitutional prohibition on sending military troops overseas.

The oil brought to Japan by this very route became the driving force behind the economic growth of Japan regarded as a "postwar miracle." A new image of Japan replaced "Fujiyama and Geisha girls" - an image of endless industrialized coastal zones filled with huge tankers and industrial complexes. Although this image creates an impression of the great vitality of advanced technology and industrial power, it also fed the belief that Japan was inhabited by millions of untiring workaholics, in an inhuman land which demanded total loyalty to the company at the expense of all individuality.

This was around the late 1960s, when the whale was taken up as the symbol of the environmental protection movement - a time when the U.S. began to see Japan as the great polluter of the world. There were even reports of gas masks being provided on street comers in Japanese cities because of the photochemical smog. This image of a nation seemingly willing to sacrifice everything in the pursuit of economic success - even the very space occupied by its citizens - fitted perfectly with the image of the "environmental public enemy No. 1."

Chapter VII

Japan as an Anti-Whaling Funding Source

Although many people regard the actions of the anti-whaling lobby as racial discrimination, it is really more anti-Japanese than simple racial discrimination - with Japan ever cast in the role of the enemy. If it was really only a question of race, then clearly the many problems of whether or not to allow Inuit whaling would not have been resolved on racial grounds alone⁶. Japan became the target because it was a great economic power, seen to be squeezing money out of the rest of the world. Just before any meeting of the IWC in Britain, strange events often seemed to take place, such as a Japanese-made car being set on fire in the streets. Although this is ostensibly only the work of some impassioned members of the anti-whaling movement, in reality it is a blatant threat sent to Japanese car dealers. Having one's merchandise incinerated is hardly favorable for public relations and business. The Japanese car dealers are caught in a difficult position. So every time this happens they loosen their purse strings in response to this blackmail threat - "If you just make a donation... then your cars will be safe."

There is also the story of a Canadian animal exporter who was trying to airfreight a killer whale to Japan and who made reservations with Japan Airlines. When the anti-whaling lobby got hold of this information, they claimed the act was cruel to animals, and they wrote to the airline saying that they might blow up the plane if the company persisted in airfreighting the whale. Frightened away, JAL refused to transport the killer whale. But the very next day, a rival foreign airline boldly flew it over to Japan. Considering the fierce competition in the air cargo industry, they probably even paid the anti-whaling movement for introducing them to such a good client. Yet it was this very anti-whaling movement that, right from the beginning, claiming nonconsumptive use of whales at the IWC, promoted the display of whales - confined in aquariums - for profit, even after the ban on whaling. Did they somehow think that a killer whale would swim into an aquarium on its own? The changes in the ethical standards of the anti-whaling lobby never cease to amaze me; in 1993, the movie "Free Willy" was the hit of the year. I understand the story of Willy was not exactly in conformity with the idea of non-consumptive use.

In New Zealand, lurid anti-Japanese research whaling TV commercials have been financed by a Japanese motor company. In the United Kingdom in 1987, a number of anti-whaling organizations attempted threats to Japanese trading companies and financial institutions in the city of London to boycott their products if they answered "yes" to a questionnaire about the possibility of a contribution to the Japanese whaling research fund.

Such examples are only a fraction of the many that might be mentioned, but it is a sad irony that the "great eco-outlaw nation" Japan has been a source of funds for the anti-whaling lobby.

Pollution and environmental destruction stand hidden in the shadow of this "great eco-outlaw nation." Although the striking economic growth and industrialization of modern Japan is avidly reported overseas, the fact that at least two-thirds of the land area of Japan is made up of mountains of verdant green with clear streams flowing through their wooded slopes, somehow fails to be mentioned. On the contrary, the media triumphantly runs reports of such excesses as cars now being bumper to bumper all over Japan.

Somehow I couldn't see my place in any of this. While living in Australia, watching these developments from outside Japan, I was absolutely amazed. I first became aware of this image of Japan in 1973 when I received an invitation from a social studies teacher at Barker College, a famous prep school in Sydney's northern suburbs, to come and speak about Japan. Armed with some slides, I found myself shown to the school auditorium where as many as 200 well-behaved school boys were sitting waiting. In order to get our conversation started, I asked the following question.

"You've all heard of word association games, haven't you? I want you to listen to the words I use and tell me whatever comes to mind. Okay? Are you ready? Ancient Japan." They answered much as I expected with words like "shogun" and "samurai."

But when I said "Modern Japan," every hand in the room seemed to go up at once. Pollution, environmental destruction, cars, the bullet train, Minamata disease - these were the responses fired at me, one after another.

This was the image these elite school boys had of modern Japan - boys on whom so much of the hope of the future was fastened. I wonder what these young boys are now thinking, 20 years later. As for myself, 10 years passed and I found myself living in Tokyo, where in 1983 I met a young Australian journalist, in his mid-twenties, who had received a grant from the Australia Japan Foundation to come and collect material. Apparently it was his first foreign assignment, having finally managed to get permission from his local paper to write an article on Japan. I asked him about his first impression of Japan, while we were sitting by the window in a high-rise building which looked out over the beautiful fresh greenery of the Imperial Palace.

"I'm amazed. Japan is just so green! Looking out of the windows as I arrived at Narita, my first impression was how very green Japan was. I mean, look at this building. Even though it's in the middle of the city, it's surrounded by greenery. To be honest, ever since I was a child I had always thought that Japan had sacrificed its environment to achieve industrialization and economic growth. And so until now, without any real proof, I thought Japan was a grayish nation - without the slightest hint of green."

He actually used the words "without any real proof." Hearing this, I suddenly remembered something once told to me, quite calmly, by a New Zealand biologist. He said to me, "I just don't believe - though so many people do - Japan's bad reputation as the world's great destroyer of the natural environment. Although New Zealand is now known as one of the foremost protectors of nature, historically the national forests have been cut down tree by tree to make more pasture land. Japan, on the other hand, has protected as much as two-thirds of its native forests, hasn't it? We too have done our share of environmental destruction but somehow our actions have been washed away into the backwaters of history. And even though Japan is now encouraging even more afforestation, it somehow always seems to have a bad reputation, no doubt due to biased information."

Until he pointed this out to me, I had never thought that New Zealand had ever destroyed any of its natural environment. Apparently it has sacrificed as much as 70 percent of its natural forest on one of its major islands to consolidate its position as a stock-breeding nation. Yet somehow, New Zealand has retained the image of a protector of the beauties of the natural environment.

On second thought, our Japanese ancestors were no doubt wise to go out after the riches of the oceans from very early in our history because as much as two-thirds of Japan is made up of mountains and forests. We now live in an age where we are dependent on imports for virtually all our foodstuffs, and so whale meat is a very valuable source of protein, for it is symbolically one of the very few food items that could be acquired self-sufficiently. In 1985, just before commercial whaling of Antarctic minke whales was closed by the moratorium under pressure from the anti-whaling lobby, Japanese whaling drastically cut back on its whale catch. From the 2,261 minke whales caught, however, 10,852 tons of whale meat were produced⁷. Minke whales are quite small: one individual only produces four to eight tons of meat. Yet the minke whale has a much higher productivity rate than beef cattle. One beef carcass only produces approximately 0.3 tons of meat, while one minke produces as much as 16 times that amount. If 35,000 head of grazing cattle were needed to produce 10,852 tons of meat, and if Japan's high rainfall allows only two head of cattle to be grazed per acre, then 17,500 acres would be needed. This would be equivalent to the area of the Tokyo wards of Chiyoda and Setagaya - the largest wards in terms of population and area in Tokyo - put together. Yet the ocean provides us with a rich natural resource, without having to cut down the many trees that would cover a space that size.

The minke whale stock in the Antarctic Ocean is regarded as a robust population, even by the population specialists of the IWC Scientific Committee. There are probably people who think that we don't really need to eat whales in this age of excess and who regard the Japanese traditional whale meat diet as just "exotic." Let me respond to that as follows. By application of the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) developed by the IWC Scientific Committee and approved by the Commission itself, limited catches of Antarctic minke whales for 100 years would have no adverse effects on its population. If Japan or any other nation can afford to send a meet under the control of an international monitoring system systemized by the IWC (this can be incorporated into the Revised Management Scheme [RMS]), let Japan market the harvested meat and charge Japan to contribute to funds for saving people from starvation in some parts of the world. By the end of the 2lst century, population increases will mean that as much as five times the current amount of food will be necessary to feed the world's human population. If the anti-whaling lobby really aims to save the earth by saving the whales (which they have achieved by imposing a moratorium), isn't it now time to consider the more impending problem to the earth, human population growth?

Chapter VIII

Affluence and Food

Many people seem to believe that because Japan is an economically affluent country, its nationals should abstain from eating such "exotic" food as whale meat. This is entirely a self-centered argument. Western foods such as pheasant, venison, waterfowl, caribou, foie gras, and steak tartar, to name a few, are very "exotic" to us, but we don't blame the Americans or Europeans for their eating habits. Once I was honored to interpret for Senator Bob Packwood of the United States (the man responsible for the Packwood/Magnuson Amendment with which his country threatened Japan with economic sanctions for whaling) when he visited Japan. A Japanese press representative asked him how he would respond to a question, "Americans are affluent, so why bother to eat beef?" The senator charmingly responded, "Oh, don't be so irrational, cattle are bred for human consumption. Whales are endangered, and cannot be eaten." I can imagine this sounds to most Western people a very rational answer. But just wait before you agree with the Senator. What about some stocks of minke whales that are not endangered? What about deforestation in some parts of the world for grazing cattle? The question was not superfluous, the Japanese press was interested in gauging the depth of ethnocentrism in this famous Japan-basher.

If you believe that affluence can change ethnic food habits, you may see the opposite case in the northernmost part of the American continent. In the town of Barrow, Alaska, the indigenous people are permitted by the IWC to hunt the world's most endangered whale species, the bowheads. When I visited this town, warm hospitality was extended to me by the whaling captains and their families. The town, though located in the harshest climate in the continent, was well-appointed with modern architecture reflected in many of its municipal establishments, supermarket, video-shops, and people's homes. In comparison, the shops and the whalers' homes in the town of Ayukawa in Japan look like rabbit hutches. There seemed to be no shortage of food in Barrow as one browses in the large supermarket and finds all manner of meat and vegetables, most of them possibly airfreighted frozen from the U.S. mainland, whereas in Ayukawa there is no such thing as a supermarket. The people in Barrow hunt whales for cultural reasons and not for staple food; when I say "cultural reasons," I mean that their whaling practice is neither for economic gain nor for staple food. In Barrow, to maintain the status of a whaling captain, I was told, costs not only popularity but also money, because it is the responsibility of the captain to pay for the cost of the crew and their whaling equipment, their days out for whaling away from their regular jobs, and fuel used for the motorboat in the autumn hunt when non-traditional vessels are used. I was told that whaling really costs the captain a fortune. One of the whaling captains was kind enough to invite me to dinner where roasted caribou meat was the main dish. Another thing I noted in Barrow was the noise of sand buggies or motor cycles through the night made by young people enjoying the long daylight hours. These people seem more affluent than most of the small-type whalers in the coastal villages in Japan, presumably because of the town's revenue from the natural gas and oil exploration.

On the other hand, in the small-type whaling town of Ayukawa, the nights through the year are deadly quiet, since there are few young people left in the town because the moratorium deprived them of job opportunities. Their shops and whalers' homes seem modest indeed compared to those in Barrow. It is true that the climate is much milder in Ayukawa, where it can only get as cold as -10°C, but I haven't seen any homes equipped with central heating like in the spacious homes of Barrow. The pre-modern sewage system in Ayukawa is probably the part of the public works comparable to those in Barrow. The dedication of the social scientists engaged in researching Inuit whaling culture deserve admiration. They are truly wonderful people who presented the case for the needs of the local people to the IWC, which subsequently recognized their whaling under the aboriginal/subsistence category, even though the bowhead whales they hunt are one of the most severely depleted whale populations in the world. Their whaling was officially permitted by the IWC in 1979, but until that time the IWC's Scientific Committee kept recommending that this stock should not be exploited at all due to its severe depletion. Aboriginal/subsistence whaling in the minds of laypersons would be a case in which indigenous people are dependent solely upon the whale meat for their staple food. However, the reality is not the case where Alaskan Inuit whaling is concerned. It is different from small-scale coastal whaling, mainly because there is no cash transaction involved in Alaskan whaling.

In comparison, because a greater part of Ayukawa's economy in the past depended upon minke whaling until the moratorium, it is ironic that residents of Ayukawa are now obliged to give up their monetary transactions of whale meat. This is at the advice of Japanese administrators in an effort to obtain an emergency relief allocation of 50 minke whales from the IWC, where the anti-whaling lobby may never grant their request unless they eliminate the commercial element from their community-based whaling. The economy of the Ayukawa whaling community is not as affluent as that of the whaling captains in Barrow, since there are hardly any natural resources in Ayukawa other than fishing and whaling.

Chapter IX

Profaning Science?

When it comes to evaluation of the Japanese research involving minke whales in the Antarctic, even some of the Japanese media fail to see the issue in the broader perspective - as a common food source for all mankind. When Japan stated that it might carry out scientific research involving catches after the ban on commercial whaling, the North American media denounced Japan's stance as the easy way out. The failure of both sides to encompass a broader perspective lies at the heart of this disagreement. For the past seven years, a serious study of the minke whale population and its ecology in the Antarctic Ocean has been carried out by the government of Japan in accordance with Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Prior to commencement of the Japanese national research, the IWC itself was conducting an international research program on Antarctic minke whales under the IWC/IDCR to assess the stock size of the Antarctic minke whales by sighting. Scientists from Japan, the U.S., the U.K., South Africa, Australia, the former Soviet Union, and New Zealand have worked together to determine the actual conditions of this abundant population. Both this large-scale international cooperation and the meticulous research project, which divided up a huge area of the ocean into longitudinal and latitudinal blocks, were firsts in the history of whale science, and resulted in the development of new techniques which deserve high acclaim both scientifically and from the general public.

Behind this success lies sincere cooperation between the members of the sighting team who stood in the freezing cold on their ships from 4:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. every day for 71 days, and the other members of the research team from all those different countries who collected and studied the data. The analysis of the data gathered each year has been and is still made through the dedicated efforts of mathematical experts of the IWC Scientific Committee. The funding for this research project was donated to the IWC by Japan.

To argue that this study was only carried out purely for commercial industry in Japan or any other nation is a blasphemy against science. The scientists from various countries carried out this study to further scientific knowledge, and surely it is indisputable that science is, by its very essence, of value to the whole of mankind.

No country other than Japan has the technology sufficient to perform the important research of gathering biological data - such as the collection of whale ear plugs and sexual organs, which provide vital clues to the different trends affecting this population, etc. - which should be carried out in addition to the IDCR sighting surveys. Whaling on a statistically valid scale is inevitable, because of the absolute need to gather an effective statistical biological sample every year. It is vital, for the betterment of mankind, that Japan continues to play the leading role in this investigatory research.

The aim of the anti-whaling movement is to stop whaling completely, leaving the actual condition of these populations unknown, as is clear from their establishment of the Indian Ocean sanctuary. A new politically-motivated proposal to establish a whale sanctuary from 40° S in the Southern Ocean was presented by France to the IWC in 1992. For several reasons, a number of scientific forums other than the IWC do not recognize the proposal's merit for the protection of truly depleted large whale species. One obvious reason is that it would only provide a double hedge redundant to the IWC's own Revised Management Procedure now ready with its peripheral scheme, the RMS. Another scientific reason to reject this proposal is that a sanctuary is useful only if both feeding and breeding grounds are covered and monitored. It is unrealistic to consider covering various breeding grounds of many large whale stocks from the Equator to various regions of the Southern Ocean. It is also impractical to undertake such an enormous scale of operations for monitoring coupled with certain administrative constraints pertinent to the coastal states (comprised of both members and non-members of the IWC.) The true purpose of this proposal is obvious: the like-minded countries, under the pressure of the anti-whaling lobby, simply want to terminate any form of whaling for ethical reasons. The French proposal is suicidal for the IWC, since if there is no whaling forever in the future, and abundant minke whales are left to propagate without utilization by mankind, there will be no role for the IWC, the charter of which in its preamble clearly states "Recognizing that the whale stocks are susceptible to natural increases if whaling is properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks will permit the increases in the number of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources".

Chapter X

Who Decides the Ethical Standards?

As far as Japan is concerned, all conduct relating to whaling by Japan has been made in compliance with the ICRW. The problem, however, arises from the differences of perception between the like-minded nations and the whaling nations regarding whales. Since every ethnic group around the world has different cultural habits, it is impossible to rule out any one particular ethnic habit just because others think it is detestable. In light of these differences of culture, science seems the only basis for determining right or wrong. So it is sensible that the ICRW stipulates that the IWC must base its policies on the best scientific advice.

The world is now growing in multiculturalism, and horizons can only grow more peace-loving, broader, and more compassionate. It is not only for the white Anglo-Saxon population, but also all other ethnic groups including Japan itself to grow in the understanding of different cultures. A new century should see the unfolding of a greater cultural diversity and we should learn to respect others. Only through mutual respect can we achieve peace.

Let me quote a message given by the late President J.F. Kennedy. Though he was not referring in this instance to the whaling controversy (the game had not begun then), in his speech at the commencement of American University in June, 1963, he left us the following eternal message:

"So, let us not be blind to our differences - but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity."

Epilogue

Cultural Controversy: What We Should Learn from the Whaling Issue

Whale meat has been used in the Japanese diet since time immemorial; in the ancient anthology of verses known as the Manyou-shu (A.D. 360 to 759), the word isana-tori ("whale-catchers") was used for whalers. In the Heian period (794 to 1185), the aristocrats listed whale meat as part of their food intake. In the Muromachi period (1392 to 1570) whale meat was included in the official diet, together with several recipes for it. However, it was not until the Edo period (1600 to 1867) that whaling developed as an industry. As whaling was practiced mainly in the southern and western parts of the Japanese archipelago, commoners living in Edo (now known as Tokyo) and its environs would not normally have had supplies of whale meat. The whale meat diet became familiar to the people of Tokyo and the Kanto region after the Second World War, when a large quantity of whale meat was made available from Antarctic whaling, which was encouraged by the U.S. Occupation Forces in order to save the Japanese people from starvation.

When present-day Western media claim that whale meat eating habits are not traditionally Japanese, nor part of the Japanese culture, it only reveals their superficial contact with the urban dwellers of Japan. Any journalist with a more penetrative ability would recognize the diversity of the Japanese food culture intrinsically present in every small locality.

Even conservative whale population experts of the IWC Scientific Committee would admit now that it is incorrect to declare that all whale stocks around the world are endangered. The Japanese under such circumstances generally believe that it is ethnocentric arrogance by Western culture to rule out the whale meat-eating habit as immoral. Stronger advocates of Japanese food culture would claim that such anti whale-use views amount to cultural imperialism.

It would be necessary, therefore, for the anti-whaling powers to justify their ethical rationale of opposing the human consumption of whale meat merely by continuation of the moratorium or establishment of a whale sanctuary under the IWC regime.

When one admits that whale eating is a part of Japanese culture, it can be argued that by the same token anti-whaling belief is a part of Western culture. Justifiably, the anti-whaling belief has its source in the animal rights culture which is gaining impetus in the United States and Europe.

Taking animal protein and vegetables for food is inevitable for the maintenance of our lives. Whether we like it or not, food for mankind is composed of biological species such as land animals, marine species, and vegetables. There are disputes when people in one culture choose to take a kind of food which is difficult for people in another culture to accept. It is a matter of how broad-minded people can become within the limits of their ethnic upbringing. Any attempt to totally deny differences of food habits in different cultures as immoral would lead to ethnic discrimination.

When I spoke to a group of students at an Australian university, there was an animal rights believer in the audience. She posed me a question saying, "The Japanese seem to have no conscience about eating whale meat, because they say minke whales are not endangered. If any animals should be available as food just because they are not endangered, how about human beings? The human population is increasing, so I presume the Japanese would not hesitate to eat human meat." On yet another occasion, in Japan, I was faced with a Japanese anti-whaling believer who asked me, "You say the whale meat-eating habit is a part of our culture. Are you also saying that endangered pandas should be eaten, because they are a part of Chinese culture, and human beings can be eaten, because they are not endangered?"

In both cases described above, I felt a danger in pushing their logic to the limit. In their thinking, these people have no respect for human dignity. The Australian animal rights believer degrades humans to the level of other animals, and the Japanese implied in her question that we are imbeciles to admit that for the sake of culture even severely depleted species should be sacrificed. Here, I would remind these people that we kill germs and bugs; we use insecticides to grow our crops; by merely removing the original land cover to develop agriculture, we deprive countless animals and birds of their natural habitat. In short, life depends upon taking life (Albert Schweitzer said this in 1950).

The confrontation between the whale meat-eating culture and anti-whaling culture seems unproductive and futile. In fact, it is counterproductive to promoting cultural diversity for a better world. The Japanese in general have little regard for the special status of whales as "the mankind of the ocean." That is because we have always conceived of the whale as a food source. It doesn't mean that we have no respect for whales; rather whales have been viewed as a part of nature as animals that sacrifice their lives to sustain human life. If minke whales are not endangered, then it is difficult to convince us to give up our food habit. Be it an eating habit of the Norwegians, the Japanese, or anybody else, there must be a universally acceptable rationale if the people of one country are to give up habits that have been cultivated throughout their history. Unilateral prohibition without such a rationale would only widen the disparity between cultures.

When I was told by a group of Norwegians that there were long queues in front of shops in Oslo where the by-product of research whaling, minke whale meat, was made available in 1992, I empathized with them. Theirs was an expression of proud resistance against the ethnocentrism of the animal rights believers.

Recently, an Australian tabloid reported that the only reason for the Japanese government to continue to argue for re-opening of commercial whaling is "to save face." How, then, to explain the empathy we feel toward the Norwegians? Would the same tabloid claim that Japanese are more complacent and obedient to anthropomorphic animal rights beliefs than Norwegians?

Suppose the Japanese gave up whaling altogether. What would the next target be for the anti-whaling believers? An obvious choice for them would be fisheries, and already some U.K. papers are promoting "no fish day" to demonstrate their anti-Asian sentiments. The Japanese will continue to argue against the anti-whaling concept in order to prevent that kind of irrational campaign from gaining power.

1. The 13 countries were: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

2. The five species permitted for whaling by the Scientific Committee were: sei whales. minke whales, fin whales, Bryde's whales, and sperm whales.

3. C.H. Pop is the surplus population model presented by Dr. K.R. Allen.

4. Catch Per Unit Effort = The amount of fish caught per effort. The unit is generally used to measure data for estimating marine populations.

5. The P/M Amendment is a way of imposing sanctions against any country whose nationals are engaging in conduct diminishing the effectiveness of the International Whale Conservation Program. The act functions by nullifying 50% of the fishing allocation within the U.S. 200-mile zone which had been allocated to the said country under a fisheries agreement with the U.S. If the conduct regarded by the U.S. as "diminishing the effectiveness..." continued, 100% of the catch allocation would then be nullified in the following year.

6. The native inhabitants of the state of Alaska caught bowhead whales, for which a zero catch limit had been recommended by the IWC Scientific Committee. However, even though the Commission allowed a quota of bowheads, in reality there have been periodic catches exceeding the quota due to whales being struck and lost.

7. During the 1984-85 season, Japan caught 1,491 Antarctic minkes and 320 minkes in the Pacific coastal sea.

8. Japan provides the considerable amount of over 500 million yen annually to cover general costs and costs of vessels with trained crews.

_