Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Harpooning ourselves in the foot

By Brendan O'Reilly - posted Monday, 29 July 2013


Australia is asking the International Court to halt the current Japanese whaling programme, known as JARPA II, which has a self-awarded "research" quota of up to 935 minke whales (which are amongst the smallest whales and are generally put in the Not At Risk category), 50 fin whales, and 50 humpbacks.  Japanese whalers have taken an average of about 560 whales per annum (about half this set quota) over the 24 years from 1986 to 2012, and this has not prevented whale stocks from growing.  

It is notable that Norway, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands) and Iceland are also whalers, but that our criticism of Japan is much stronger.  Norway reports that its whalers took 533 (mainly minke) whales in 2011, though its government issued permits for around 1,200 whales.  Iceland also hunts minke whales (about 215 in 2012) as well as fin whales.  Greenland has a seasonal whale hunt by aboriginal groups, taking about 100 minke and 10 fin whales per year, along with a small number of other whales.  The Faroe Islands reported 726 pilot whales taken from shore in 2011.

Norway and Iceland'swhaling takes place under the formal objection that they lodged to the International Whaling Commission's moratorium back in the 1980s.  They are said to be in the strange legal position of being members of the International Whaling Commission, but not obligated by its central rule.  Greenland authorises its whale hunts under the aboriginal exemption. 

Advertisement

Japan's representatives claim (with some justification) that the IWC has become dysfunctional because it is totally dominated by countries in favour of the total and permanent elimination of whaling.  The main whaling nations consequently have all either threatened to leave the IWC or find ways around its rulings. 

Japan has consumed whale meat since before 800 AD and, in the aftermath of  World War II, whale meat became an important source of protein.  The Japanese believe that countries like Australia (seeking a total ban on whaling) are culturally insensitive.  From Australia's perspective, there is no good reason to perpetuate the current legal and diplomatic fight with Japan, and lots of reasons to settle it by negotiation.  The main reason is that it is impossible to enforce the outcome Australia seeks.  We have a substantial trade surplus with Japan, as well as cultural, tourism, defence and scientific ties, which could potentially suffer.  Most likely, even if we "win" our case against Japan, (for little gain) the indirect cost could well be substantial.

Australia currently has a limited number of real friends among countries in our region, and the dispute with Japan over whaling threatens to spoil what had developed into one of our warmer relationships.  Canberra, for example, has developed a sister city relationship with the city of Nara, and (until Mandarin became fashionable as a language), Japanese had become widely studied here as the dominant foreign language.

While we have excellent relations with New Zealand and generally good relations with the Philippines, South Korea and Thailand, that is about it.  Our relations with Indonesia and Malaysia have generally fluctuated from delicate to testy.  We have had a row with East Timor over oil and gas, and with the French Pacific over nuclear testing.  PNG and much of Oceania resent Australia's role as a post-colonial regional power.  While China is the flavour of the month, our relationship has issues over defence ties with the US and concerns over human rights.  The list goes on.

A final reason why the legal fight with Japan is unnecessary is that Japanese public sentiment towards whaling is not as strong as it once was.  This may be due to greater awareness of conservation or to health concerns about toxic mercury levels.  Tests have revealed high levels of mercury and other toxins in whale meat sold in Japan, particularly in the liver.  The bottom line is that much of the remaining demand for whale meat (and Japanese support for whaling) is likely to diminish of its own accord over time without the need for regulation or prohibition.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Brendan O’Reilly is a retired commonwealth public servant with a background in economics and accounting. He is currently pursuing private business interests.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Brendan O'Reilly

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy