One year ago, the International Whaling Commission had an opportunity to put its house in order. Recognizing the risks presented by growing fissures in the institution, Chairman Fischer presented member states with a carefully constructed document designed to finally move forward discussions on the Revised Management Scheme.

IWMC believes that the IWC would have been well served if member states had used the Chairman’s proposals as the basis for RMS negotiations. Compromises were required from both sides. For whaling nations, it meant dealing with a series of specific and unwelcome restrictions. For anti-whaling countries, it meant accepting that limited commercial whaling could take place again.

However, the proposals had a chance to work only if member nations chose to stand by the IWC’s mission. The objective of the IWC, enshrined in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, is "to provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry".

The non-whaling caucus rejected Chairman Fischer’s proposals and, as a result, RMS negotiations did not move forward. Nevertheless, an important step was taken. The response to the document illuminated the IWC’s underlying problem – that a large number of countries are diametrically opposed to its mission. Judging from the reactions in Sorrento and afterwards, around half of IWC member states wish to prevent the establishment of an RMS. Clearly, a management system cannot be established if this situation persists.

There is no other international institution in which half the member states openly oppose the aims they endorse through ratification. Normal practice is for countries to withdraw from treaties that they can no longer support. In the IWC, countries do the opposite; they try to recruit new members who also will not support the founding Convention. Ironically, it is the countries that uphold the Convention who find themselves tempted to withdraw.

It seems unlikely that those countries wishing to recast the IWC as an organization dedicated to the total prohibition of whaling will take the more honorable course of withdrawing and establishing a separate international regulatory body with that aim. After all, it is only as a grouping within the IWC, subverting the aims set down by the whaling convention, that they have the tactical capability of achieving their aims.

IWMC welcomes the candor with which New Zealand and Australia have recently articulated their positions on the future of the IWC. Not only have they “outed” themselves with statements to the media, they have made radical proposals to change the objectives of the IWC to ones that they could support. The Environment Minister of Australia has stated that, “The goal of the Australian government is to reform the IWC and turn it into an international whale conservation commission. Having an international body that’s dedicated to the regulation of whaling in this millennium is absurd. We need a commission that’s focused on the conservation of whales, not the destruction of them.”

Less overtly and less honestly, several other anti-whaling countries continue to hide behind misleading descriptions of the aims of the IWC. It may suit their opposition to whale harvesting to ignore “the orderly development of the whaling industry” and interpret “conservation” to mean “total protection”, and it may fool some commentators, but this is hardly a politically rigorous approach.

IWMC believes Chairman Fischer was right when he warned last year that, "If the IWC is to fulfill its role in the conservation and management of whales stocks and to avoid past errors, real effort must be made to complete the RMS expeditiously. Failure to put an RMS in place will jeopardize the future of the IWC and serves neither the interests of whale conservation nor management."

Countries wishing to uphold the mission of the IWC must secure the support of three-quarters of members. With their new proposals, New Zealand and Australia have raised the stakes. The question for the more moderate non-whaling countries no longer is “Can we delay commercial whaling?” but “Can we risk the collapse of the IWC?”

The conundrum for supporters of the sustainable use of marine wildlife resources is if, when and how to leave the IWC. It is summed up nicely by the words of punk musicians, The Clash (ironically in 1982):

Should I stay or should I go now? If I go there will be trouble An’ if I stay it will be double

Ulsan should help clarify the choices that are being made by member states.