he
first two articles on the political nature of the whaling debate, IWMC
Conservation Tribune explored the debate at both an international and community
level. In the third and final article, IWMC looks at why it’s necessary for
the IWC members to move away from such tactics.
A quick look back at the history of the IWC and it’s easy to see why it is
in the position it is today, that is quickly becoming an organisation that
appears to give little thought to the regulations under which it was
established. IWMC has recounted how when pro- and anti-whaling nations began to
seriously clash, it was initially at a nation-to-nation level at IWC fora.
However, over the last few years, we have seen the whaling debate grow to
include local communities in various countries: the Caribbean extension and the
inclusion of Indigenous New Zealanders – the Maori – giving active support
to other Indigenous Peoples to continue with sustainable whaling.
The debate is moving away from the traditional IWC arena and into the
domestic arena. In the Caribbean, the world witnessed grassroots support for
Dominica’s stance to support sustainable use – the re-emergence of "the
people" being the final arbiter on this issue.
The same occurred in New Zealand. For years, IWC members had heard some of
the strongest anti-whaling rhetoric ever from this country, until last year when
the Indigenous People of Aotearoa stood up and said they support other
Indigenous People to sustainably commercially utilise marine mammals, including
seals and whales. This time, unlike the Caribbean, it was a grassroots show of
hands against that country’s stance at the IWC.
IWMC is an international organization devoted to the promotion of sustainable
use as a conservation mechanism, to the protection of sovereign rights of
independent nations and to the respect of cultures and traditions. The stand of
various Indigenous Peoples is supported.
But the IWMC does not support the political maneuverings/manipulations that
hijack the sovereign rights of particular members of the IWC. Is stopping the
resumption of whaling of abundant species so important that it’s necessary to
strip away the dignity of smaller nations that each year must rely on foreign
aid or trade with their larger neighbors?
The Solomon Islands should feel particularly aggrieved. Economic and
political pressure last year was so great for the Solomon Islands that it robbed
it of the right to vote. Similarly, the Caribbean islands should also be
extremely concerned by the focus put on them by various NGOs.
A possibility is that these smaller IWC members will no longer put up with
the filibustering, and leave the Commission. Will we eventually see the IWC with
only a few of the larger members jockeying for lead position. If we do, the IWC
will be an organisation not worth the paper on which its regulations are
written.
Nations have a sovereign right to continue with their traditional ways of
life, whether it is for commercial purposes or not. Stripping away various
nations’ sovereign rights will achieve nothing in the whaling debate. 
