(from "ISANA" No. 11, 1994)

Rin'itsu Kawakami
Professor of the Faculty of Law, Kyoto University

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) should at least change its name. It has been a long time since it has actually been involved in dealing with the "management of whaling". As an organization which in fact places higher priority on protecting wild animals and pets than on human beings trying to earn a living, it should be called the Anti-Humanism Commission (AHC), or, as an organization caught up in the self-righteousness of its decision-making, the Environmental Fascism Commission (EFC).

In any case, it can't use an adjective like "international" without making some attempt to understand different cultures or face up to scientific knowledge.

It has already been announced that the IWC decided at the Mexico annual meeting to adopt the proposal of France and the United States of making the Antarctic Ocean a whale sanctuary. Although the commission has said it will conduct a "review in 10 years" of its decision, considering the anti-whaling attitude of many shameless countries - countries which have induced other countries uninvolved in whaling to obtain membership in the commission and join their side - a resumption of whaling within the framework of the IWC will be almost impossible.

Politics of Emotion and Power

The United States representatives at the IWC has long asserted that he emphasizes "public opinion" more than scientific proof, so it can be said that the forum of debate on the whaling issue has been in the dimension of emotion and power rather than of reason. But what "public opinion" is being referred to?

The tone of the arguments from the United States and Europe is no more than an expression of their values. But because of overwhelming media control, the arguments are presented as if they were the opinion of the whole world. The problem is that Japan, yielding to the structure of a media dominated by European languages, does not express its own values.

It has been reported that the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries has decided on a policy of expressing objections to the concept of the creation of a whale sanctuary in the Antarctic Ocean. This is better, of course, than expression no objection. (I wonder if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is also putting its efforts into this issue.)

But why doesn't Japan just withdraw from the IWC the way Iceland has? Why doesn't Japan resume commercial whaling the way Norway has? Why doesn't Japan unilaterally announce a resumption of its historic coastal whaling on a minimal scale? Why doesn't the government adopt a lifting of the complete ban on importing whale meat? Many doubts remain. I wonder if the government has the courage to preserve whaling.

As long as Japan ingratiates itself to the anti-whaling sentiments of the West and continues to keep secret its computations of the economic pros and cons of a resumption of whaling, allowing them to be known only within the government for political considerations, there is little chance of receiving recognition of Japan's uniqueness or a correct evaluation of Japan's culture.

Indian Hindus don't eat beef, and Muslims don't eat port; North American and European Christians don't eat whale meat. Behind these customs is probably a kind of cultural pride. But forcing one's culture onto others contradicts the propriety of co-existence. Strictly speaking, doing so is a crime of cultural destruction. There is no reason why only North Americans and Europeans should be permitted to force their culture on others.

American novelist, Herman Melville, with his depiction of the whaling ship, the Pequod, portrayed a magnificent scenario of the world, with its basis in texts ranging from the Old Testament to Milton's Paradise Lost. The mortal combat between Captain Ahab and the giant whale, Moby Dick, expressed the essential relationship between humans and the harshness of nature. The West, therefore, does have the foundations for understanding that whaling is not merely an economic activity.

Firm Opposition

The whaling problem is a cultural problem. It has, however, been made into an issue of global environmental protection and radicalized into an extreme issue concerning culture in general rather than one of dietary culture. Nevertheless, more than anything else, it is a cultural problem, not a political problem which could lead to war.

If Japan fears friction with the Western nations on an issue of this nature and cannot assert its will, then Japan's desire for status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council is laughable. Even if an unreasonable boycott of Japanese products takes place, Japan should firmly express its position and the cost of doing so should be borne by all the people of Japan.

If Japan is to be able to make a contribution to the world of the twenty-first century, no doubt the main themes will lie within the areas of mutual understanding among differing cultures and solutions to the problem of the population explosion. The whaling issue embodies the essence of those two themes:

Japan, one of the leading fishing nations, is a country that bears distinct cultural and traditional differences from those of the West. As such, in order to deepen mutual understanding among different cultures and promote co-existence, Japan must send out a clear message to the world concerning the easily understandable issue of whaling.

II. For Sustainable Utilization of Marine Living Resources

First, let me begin with my conclusion. There is only one course of action open to Japan on the whaling issue. It is to defend vigorously and preserve the art of the whaling based on solid scientific grounds; to work toward a full lifting of the whaling ban to attain sustainable utilization of marine living resources; to refuse to bend to absurd international pressures or propaganda. If necessary, withdrawal from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) should be considered, since the commission has veered away from the original stipulations of its convention. If that happens, measures must also be taken to counter unfounded propaganda that could reach international proportions.

Japan must make ceaseless efforts to counteract anti-whaling propaganda through international public relations, and to counter expected anti-whaling propaganda inside Japan as well. The worst choice is to buy into the idea that this is a "small problem", or to simply give up.

There is absolutely no need to fear international isolation. Anti-whaling, part of so called "international opinion", is based on exaggerations perpetrated by the English-speaking media, and is advanced under the influence of an ideology lacking conclusive scientific evidence, as those who understand the facts (even those taking the anti-whaling position) must concede.

The disadvantage of choosing to defend whaling are as follows: It may result in adding fuel to the fire for conscienceless professional anti-whaling propagandists; and it may represent unwitting cooperation with those intent on diverting the attention of political forces critical of typical post-Vietnam U.S. government policies, channeling such forces toward "alien" Japan and her whaling practices. There are, however, distinct advantages, one of which being that persistent demanding of resumption of whaling will incur the possibility for Japan, as a non-Western nation, to contribute to mankind in the twenty-first century in an important way, as I will detail later.

Leaders of the anti-whaling movements, using the IWC as their stage, must surely acknowledge in their hearts the faultless logic of the Japanese position, as well as the lack of a scientific basis and fairness in their own position and methodology. There is a good possibility over the long term, and amid changes in circumstances, that these leaders may drastically change their position and some may even regret their folly (though this may be unrealistic to expect).

The Japanese delegation to the IWC has consistently been worthy of the highest praise if we consider the unfair composition of the IWC, especially its propensity to ignore rules on the strength of a majority vote, its untruthful claims basic to the anti-whaling position, the absurdity of its policy decision procedures, as well as the isolated position of member whaling nations. The Japanese delegation has drawn strength from their sense of purpose and their belief that scientific, logical debate will win in the end. The strong stance they have taken thus far must be maintained, as must repeated efforts toward resumption of whaling.

What, then, should be done to maintain this scientifically proven position for resuming whaling activities? Japan must assert once more the self-evident fact that conclusive scientific data and logical debate alone will provide the basis for mutual understanding and coexistence among differing cultures. Indeed I must strongly stress the ethical nature of this position. Efforts must be made to widely publicize the nature of this scientific debate.

The blind neglect of science inherent in the anti-whaling stance may cause an increasing sense of moral responsibility among conscientious anti-whaling movement members. And defending the whaling industry may serve to arrest the growth of increasingly strong attitudes against the fishing industry itself that have culminated in the proposal of restrictions on bluefin tuna fishing. Proposing to maintain an active whaling industry is, in effect, a form of passive resistance serving as a barricade against animosity toward the fishing industry, and against hostility toward Japanese culinary ("raw fish eating") customs. In other words, if the anti-whaling movement were to succeed completely, I believe absolutely that the next targets would be Japanese fishing practices and Japanese culinary culture.

Defending whaling will also represent an active resistance against accepting Western values as absolute; it also presents uniquely Japanese values, which helps promote a desire to understand people with differing value systems by contrasting them with one's own values.

Sustainable utilization of marine living resources will be a key to resolving the food crisis expected from an approaching population explosion. The duty of Japan is to use the skills developed through deep-sea fishing, including Antarctic whaling, not as a food-glutted "economic superpower" but as a "fishing industry superpower" to benefit the entire world.

I consider the "animal protection" sentiments directed toward wildlife and pets to be very valuable, but first consideration must be given to the daily lives of fellow human beings. There are vast numbers of people worldwide suffering from starvation. According to a survey taken by the World Bank, there are an estimated 1.13 billion persons living below the poverty level ($ 420 annual income per capita). By the year 2050, the world's population is expected to reach 10 billion. The key issue is how to solve the food problem, and surviving this crisis will depend on logical and scientific debate, not on emotionalism or an ideology.

In debates concerning "animal protection" and "wildlife preservation", there is an obvious tendency for illogical positions that appeal to the emotions to gather strength in the public arena. Of course, every attempt should be made whenever possible to protect animals. But utilizing animal resources for human survival is not a contradictory position. For example, while mankind benefits greatly from modern medicine, it is quite common to see reactionary emotional responses among people to experiments using animals, though these experiments are vital to medical developments. If reality in the anti-whaling movement shows even the experts being swayed by such emotionalism, the situation will be deplorable indeed.

The reality of the Western anti-whaling movement is this: People who have no qualms concerning fox hunting or pleasure hunting have suddenly rallied under the cry of "animal protection" and "wildlife preservation", using the whale as their symbol. If the anti-whaling movement were to require a logical basis, the only recourse would be to claim "impending extinction" of whales, but that has been scientifically disproved. To justify the anti-whaling movement, the claim that "whales are on the verge or extinction" must be substantiated. Even proponents of such a claim realize it is not true, and as time brings a dramatic increase in the whale population and upsets the ecosystem, perhaps the whales themselves will prove them wrong.

I want to point out that the anti-whaling movement is comprised of the following three basic groups:

1) These are those who do not have a culinary culture using marine living resources, and lack objective knowledge concerning whale ecology and use of whales. Their anti-whaling motives stem from ignorance and cultural prejudice. They comprise the greatest proportion of those responsible for the emotion-filled anti-whaling public opinion. At the level of popular Western culture, they are simultaneously self-righteous and subjectively well-intentioned.

2) Another group can be called the "professional" anti-whaling activists. These comprise two subgroups.

The first subgroup of the professional anti-whaling propagandists are those who consider without question that their own value system - based on the traditional Western monotheistic faith - is universal. They could be described as idealists adhering to a quasi-religious whale ideology. It would be almost meaningless to attempt engage in scientific debate with such people.

The second subgroup is common among the leaders of the anti-whaling movement. They happened to choose anti-whaling as the theme for their activism but have very little interest in the whaling issue, much less the whales themselves. Strangely enough, the majority of these persons have other motives for activity endorsing anti-whaling. To be blunt, I believe their motivation is the simple fact that Japan exists as a country and a culture, and has been economically successful in the non-Western world.

3) The third group carrying the anti-whaling message, unfortunately, consists of a segment of the Japanese media that considers Western viewpoints to be "international opinion", and some Japanese companies who have surrendered to the threat of product boycotts and who have begun contributing to anti-whaling efforts. An example of this attitude on the part of the media was seen in the recent "International Population Development Conference" held in Cairo. The main themes were the population problem and the equitable distribution of resources to eliminate absolute poverty. But the media from industrialized nations, including Japan, turned a deaf ear to the heartfelt wishes of the Third World, and focused exclusively on the rightfulness or wrongfulness of abortions for humanitarian purposes.

Paranoia concerning the consequences of displeasing anti-whaling activists exists in the economic sector as well, with some distancing themselves from the problem by referring to it as a "whaling and fishing industry issue". If one of the motives of the anti-whaling movement really is "Japan-bashing", then the consequences of Japanese abandoning the whaling effort should be obvious to all readers.

As I stated at the beginning, there is only one course of action open to Japan on the whaling issue. A broad view of the world demands that Japan utilize marine living resources, and therefore she must continue to actively support whaling. Such support is the correct attitude, and she must confidently and unabashedly continue her efforts.

Finally, I propose that the most expedient and effective way to broadcast the pro-whaling message would be to immediately begin full-scale whaling operations, and quickly ship massive amounts of whale meat as humanitarian assistance to nations such as Rwanda, where the population is starving. This should be considered a government project, but because of logistical problems it probably will not come about; but if Japan is serious about making her own peaceful contributions to the world, she should not let this become just another idealistic dream.

_