n
the interest of fair play and to foster open and honest discourse on issues of
prime importance to the conservation of the world’s whales and ancient whaling
cultures, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) should adopt the
"Consistency Principle" as the ground rule for its London meeting.
For too long the "haves" – nations that enjoy thriving economies
and whose people are provided with modern healthcare and a secure food supply
– have dictated how "have not" nations should live and manage their
resources.
Under the Consistency Principle, a nation that has a history of or continues
to practise the very same behavior it hopes to ban in developing nations would
be prohibited from making such hypocritical recommendations.
Call it the Consistency Principle or the
what-is-good-for-the-goose-is-good-for-the-gander principle. Its goal is to
eliminate hypocrisy and political posturing from venues where important issues
demand serious attention.
This was a principle that was followed by the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) while the IWMC
President Eugene Lapointe was Secretary General.
A prime example is that of such highly advanced nations such as the United
States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, which led the historic slaughter of
whales for oil to lubricate their profit-driven machinery. Now, they are leading
the effort to halt nations and cultures that seek limited and regulated whaling
to feed their people. Even today, while the United States votes to deny others
the right to harvest cetaceans for food, that nation permits its own people in
Alaska and Washington State to conduct limited and regulated whaling to feed
their people.
Under the Consistency Principle, only nations that never whaled could put
forth recommendations for such prohibitions on whaling people. IWMC – World
Conservation Trust wants to see the Consistency Principle afforded the same
respect as given the Precautionary Principle at forums such as CITES and IWC. 
