The Tangled Web of U.S. Whaling Policy

Berlin, 18 June 2003:  Everyday political life often is characterized by ugly, but necessary, compromises. The history and practice of U.S. whaling policy, which a State and Commerce Department delegation has placed on display at the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in Berlin on June 16 is an apt case in point.

At that meeting, the U.S. is claiming its customary place at the head of the global anti-whaling bloc, condemning Iceland, Japan and Norway for their ongoing, and contemplated, commercial and scientific whaling programs, the vast bulk of which are targeted at the plentiful minke whale. Simultaneously, U.S. boats crewed and captained by U.S. citizens will be putting out into the Beaufort Sea in the hunt for the bowhead whale, one of the more perilously endangered cetacean species. This hunt will have the full approval and support of the U.S. Government and, thanks to a new initiative, the whaling boats will even be eligible for a special tax deduction to cover the costs of the hunt.

The solution to this odd riddle lies in history. The U.S. was once a major whaling nation, largely because of its use of whale oil. Kerosene freed the country from use of whale oil as fuel and, much later, synthetic substitutes ended the U.S. submarine force’s use of whale oil in its guidance systems. No longer needing whale products, Washington decided to take the helm of the global anti-whaling movement.

Trouble arose the moment that fingers touched the helm. The Inupiat of Alaska had, for longer than history records, taken the bowhead whale, not for oil, but for meat. Neither they, nor their Congressional representatives, had any intention of ceasing this activity just because federal officials in Washington had developed a new sensitivity to cetaceans.

A compromise had to be found. The U.S. posited that, since Inupiat whaling did not involve cash transactions, it was "aboriginal" and, therefore, acceptable while other nations "commercial" and "scientific" programs were not acceptable. Ethically, the difference appears dubious, since all three activities involve the killing of whales. The distinction has no real basis in U.S. law – the Internal Revenue Service makes zero distinction between transactions in kind and transactions in cash. Moreover, if the Inupiat hunt truly has zero commercial character, how can it be eligible for a tax break?

Illogical and invalid though the "aboriginal" versus "commercial" distinction may be, for the U.S., it served its purpose, enabling Washington to assert its environmental credentials without alienating a powerful domestic constituency. Further trouble only arose when the U.S. resolved that it would not extend to its strategic allies the level of understanding that it afforded itself.

Norwegian, Japanese and Icelandic fishermen, like the Inupiat, have a deep cultural history of whaling as a source of sustenance i.e. meat and, like those Alaskans, they have neither the intention nor desire of abrogating that tradition. Like the U.S., the authorities in Oslo and Tokyo must be mindful of domestic political realities. Every political party represented in the Japanese Diet is pro-whaling and that body’s whaling caucus is fully willing to pressure the Prime Minister to promote its agenda, particularly when it comes to those coastal communities badly hit by the ongoing moratorium on commercial whaling. A similar political consensus exists in Norway, where the Coastal Party – whose central raison d’être is to protect whaling, has held the balance of power in the Storting, the national parliament. Clearly, in one form or another, these nations are going to harvest whales.

However, so far Washington has shown regard for no-one’s domestic conundrums but its own. Having "resolved" the Inupiat problem, the U.S. has roundly condemned Norway and Japan’s whaling programs, to the point of threatening both with economic sanctions. This policy has been pressed despite the off the record acknowledgement that both programs are fully sustainable and legal. As the Secretary General of CITES has pointed out, the minke is plentiful and needs to be taken off the protected list so that nations can get on with the urgent business of protecting the blue and right whale and other truly endangered animal species. When the I.W.C. adopted the moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982, Norway deliberately took a reservation to the agreement that allows it legally to continue its harvest. Japan’s scientific whaling program is specifically provided for under the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, the founding instrument of the I.W.C.

Faced with these arguments, U.S. officials concede their merit but then assert that the Norwegian and Japanese programs are "not helpful"? Who is supposed to be helped here? Is the first duty of Norwegian and Japanese politicians to their own constituents or to bureaucrats in Washington D.C.? Far from being "helpful", those politicians need to tell Washington, in no uncertain terms, that it has crafted its own necessary, ugly little compromise – and now they deserve theirs.

For further information, contact Eugène Lapointe
Switzerland: +41.79.327-3034 or email: iwmc@iwmc.org