There is a dispute between whaling countries and anti-whaling countries. Whaling countries argue that it is possible to take whales while preventing them from becoming extinct. Anti-whaling countries assert that there's no possibility of taking whales without extinction, and that all whales are endangered. This dispute has continued for more than two decades (Misaki, 1994). What has made this issue so persistent? What is behind this issue? To examine this subject, I will compare two nations. One is Japan and the other is the U.S. Japan is one of the whaling countries, and the U.S. is one of the anti-whaling countries. To make this paper clear, I will argue this issue from the following points of view:

1. Outline of the controversy on the whaling issue.
2. Japan and the U.S.'s stand points on whaling.
3. IWC's inconsistency
4. Japan and the U.S's historical aspects on whaling, and how whales were used and valued.
5. How Japan and the U.S. educate their own people about whales.

Let us take a look at the outline of this issue first.

1. Outline of the Controversy on the Whaling Issue

First of all, let me introduce some general information about the nations and organizations who play roles on this dispute. They are divided into tow groups, whaling nations and anti-whaling nations. Animal rights activists and environmentalists are on the side of anti-whaling nations. Whaling nations include Japan, Norway, Iceland, Russia and the U.S. The U.S. has indigenous Inuit people who are practicing whaling (Misaki, 1996). Anti-whaling nations include the U.S., the U.K., France, Australia, Switzerland, Monaco, New Zealand and others (JWA, 1997).

Although whaling nations'policies vary, the fundamental component is the same, which is that it is all right to take minke whale stock because of new scientific evidence. Anti-whaling nations'policy is uniform, which is that no commercial whaling can be allowed no matter what happens (Skare, 1994). As of 1996, there are only six whaling nations left out of thirty-nine member nations in the IWC. All decisions are made by the majority of three-fourth votes in the IWC (JWA, 1988).

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established in 1946. This was the operating institute for the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (JWA, 1981). Its goals are "to provide for the conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry" (McKee, p.9, 1996).

In 1972, the UN Conference on the Human Environment passed a resolution of "a ten-year moratorium on commercial whaling." This resolution placed pressure on the IWC to adopt this idea, however, the IWC turned it down because of no evidence found to support the moratorium by its own Scientific Committee (Donovan, 1993).

In 1982, the IWC adopted the moratorium on commercial whaling without the recommendation of the Scientific Committee which asserted that the moratorium was unnecessary (Nagasaki, 1995). A number of non-whaling countries joined the IWC before the vote for this moratorium. A big campaign was conducted by environmentalists and animal activists to let non-whaling countries join the IWC (Skare, 1994). This resolution should have been reevaluated based upon the best scientific evidence by 1990 (McKee, 1996). However, the ban was renewed without the base of the best scientific evidence in 1990 (Skare, 1994).

After the IWC passed the moratorium, Japan, Norway Iceland and other countries filed objections to the IWC under the Article V of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (Misaki, 1994). The U.S. placed pressure on Japan using the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to make Japan accept the moratorium. This domestic Law prohibits fisheries within the U.S. 200-mile coastal zone in case any country diminishes the effectiveness of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Japan withdrew the objection from the IWC and terminated the whaling operations under the agreement between the U.S. and Japan. Japan was concerned about its own $650 million fishing industry and its $40 billion trade surplus toward the U.S. at that time (JWA, 1988). In spite of the U.S.'s promise to refrain from imposing sanctions on Japan, the U.S. executed the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment on Japan in 1988 (Washimi, 1991).

Since Japan cannot resume commercial whaling, it has been practicing research whaling in the Antarctic Ocean since 1988 (Brownell, Ralls, & Perrin, 1989). Animal activists and environmentalists regard this practice as "commercial whaling" because whale meat as a by-product of research whaling is sold to expensive Japanese restaurants (Greenpeace, 1997).

Japan's justifications on this issue are following:

1. Japan has a permit to conduct research whaling authorized by the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) (Tsurumi, 1996).
2. All data on this research is submitted to the IWC every year (ICR, 1994), and acknowledged by the IWC's Scientific Committee (Tsurumi, 1996).
3. Under the Article VIII of the ICRW, the whale meat of the by-products from research whaling is evenly distributed to the market throughout Japan. This distribution is inspected by the Japanese government (ICR, 1994).
4. Due to the commercial whaling ban, the short supply of whale meat creates its high price in Japan (Misaki, 1996).
5. Eating whale meat has traditionally been a Japanese custom since 10,000 B. C. (ICR, 1996).

In 1991 and 1992, a revised management procedure on catch quotas was recommended by the Scientific Committee. However, the majorities of the parties of the IWC turned down this recommendation both times. This proposal observed that a limited harvest of non-endangered minke whales wouldn't deplete the stock (Boyton, 1994). In response to this IWC's decision, the Chairman of the Scientific Committee, Phillip Hammond, resigned from his position in protest (Skare, 1994).

2. Japan and the U.S.'s Stand Points on Whaling

Japan's standpoint on whaling is unstable. Japan has concentrated on the Japan-US Security Treaty agreed in 1951. Under this treaty, Japan as a country of renunciation of war is supposed to be protected by the U.S. in case of war (Shueisha, 1976). This treaty has always been a threat for Japan whenever any disagreement has occurred between Japan and the U.S. I suspect this is one of the reasons why Japan easily withdrew its objection to the moratorium on commercial whaling from the IWC. There was fear toward the U.S. in Japan. Japan takes following stand:

1. Minke whale stock is abundant (760,000 whales in the Southern Hemisphere), therefore Japan can take minke whales without depleting their stock.
   
   
2. Japan wants to conserve traditional whaling communities that are collapsing because of the ban on commercial whaling (ICR, 1995).

The U.S.'s stand is paradoxical. Its policy is anti-whaling. It asserts that any commercial whaling cannot be allowed even if the whale stock condition and humane killing practices are improved (High North Alliance, 1994). On the other hand, the U.S. allows the Alaskan Inuit to take truly endangered bowhead whales. The Scientific Committee of the IWC ruled that bowhead whales cannot stand hunting at all (Misaki, 1996). Even President Clinton acknowledges that the bowhead whale species is endangered in a warning message to the Canadian government. He states:

The (bowhead) whale in the eastern Arctic was taken from a highly endangered stock. The IWC has expressed particular concern about whaling on this stock, which is now known to be recovering (Clinton, 1997).

3. The IWC's Inconsistency

The IWC has a paradox, too. As it was mentioned earlier, its twin goals are"to provide for the conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of whaling industry"(McKee, p.9, 1996). According to this charter, the IWC's aim is not to stop whaling. Its aim is to develop the whaling industry while conserving the whale stock. However, the IWC is only banning whaling. Clearly, the IWC is violating its own policy.

The Scientific Committee acknowledged that there are 900,000 minke whales in the world ocean (Westneat, 1996). Even the secretary of the IWC, Dr. Ray Gambell, asserted that commercial whaling can be practiced without allowing minke whales to be extinct (Blichfeldt, 1994). Nevertheless, the IWC itself has rejected commercial whaling for minke whales (Misaki, 1996).

Japan has four traditional small coastal whaling communities. The Japanese government has been requesting a quota of 50 minke whales as an interim relief allocation to the IWC. The IWC has been rejecting this proposal since 1988. The point is that the IWC recognizes the value of those small communities, yet it doesn't allow them to take a small amount of whales. The following is the acknowledgment by the IWC:

Japan's small-type coastal whaling, though having some commercial element, culturally constitutes the core of whaling communities, and as such is close to what the IWC recognizes as subsistence whaling. Therefore, it should be allowed to meet the local demand to the extent that the minke whale population is not endangered (Misaki, p.7, 1996).

While knowing the whale meat would be shared and distributed in a non-commercial context, the IWC doesn't allow those four coastal communities to take whales (High North Alliance, 1994).

4. Historical Aspects on Whaling

The American people in general seem to have a strong sense of affection for marine mammals. Not only ordinary people but also highly educated people have such affection. The followings are several examples.

After the so-called whale trial between Japan and the U.S., the presiding judge quoted, "While this trial was being carried out, the precious life of whales has been taken away." (Misaki, p.23, 1994). My friend's sister who has a BA Major in Biology quoted, "Whales are higher developed animal with a great deal of intelligence." (Fleming, 1997). Naomi Rose, a marine mammal biologist with the Humane Society of the United States, stated the following about killing whales, "I'm sorry, but things that are this cruel have no place in the modern world." (Westneat, p. A14, 1996).

On the other hand, the majority of the Japanese don't think that way. To examine this difference, let us take a look at the historical aspects on whaling between Japan and the U.S., and also how Japan and the U.S. educate their own people later.

(1) Japan on Whaling

According to the evidence of hand harpoons and porpoise skulls found in Jomon burial mounds, it is said that Japanese has practiced whaling since 10,000 BC (ICR, 1996). Bones of whales were discovered in the shell mound of the same period. This indicates that whales were consumed for food by the Japanese people since then (JWA, 1981).

The Japanese always have taken whales for food. Due to the Buddhist beliefs, people didn't eat meat of the "four-legged animals" until the middle of the 19th century. However, since whales were regarded as fish by the Japanese, they took whales and ate whale meat. Whales have no legs and swim in the ocean (Misaki, 1996).

Whales for the Japanese were special fish which provided valuable protein and every part of the body was utilized (JWA, 1987). The Followings are the examples of utilization of whale parts:

The (whale) oil was mixed with vinegar to make a highly effective pesticide for use in rice paddies・・・ The baleen was used from the tips of fine fishing rods, to beautifully polished dishes and combos, to the springs that worked the mouths of "bunraku" pappets… Bones are sawed up, cooked and pulverized to make excellent fertilizer… Entails were used in miso soup or were broiled on charcoal. Absolutely nothing was wasted (Nicol, 1983?).

Since Japanese whaling bean, the whales were not only used as food but also had a long time association with Japanese tradition. The description of whales appears in the 'Kojiki,' which is Japan's oldest written record (712 AD). The 'Manyoshu,' a collection of ancient poems, has a description of whaling and whalers (770 AD). In the 'Heike Monogatari,' chronicle of the Heike samurai family and its fight for supremacy, there is a description of 2,000 porpoises that terminated the Heike military forces in the sea of Dannoura (JWA, 1981).

According to Buddhism, every object has a soul. Due to thi s belief, whalers in old days recited Buddhist prayers to eliminate whales’curses as they killed whales. At the same time, whalers had blessings for the whales. We can see their blessings by whale memorials in many coastal regions in Japan. There's even a whale grave in Tokyo (JWA, 1981).

(2) The US on Whaling

In the first place, the Westerners have been practicing sheep herding for 11,000 years rather than whaling (Ferro, 1996).

Americans had been chasing whales for oil and baleen all over the world. Before petroleum was found, Western people valued whale oil for high-quality lubricant, machine oil, lamp oil or candles (Misaki, 1996). Its baleen was used for skirt hoops. Westerners valued whale oil for machinery the most (Misaki, 1994).

The American whalers began whaling in the early 18th century by the discovery of the superior quality of sperm oil (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 1993). They expanded their whaling grounds from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, from the south Pacific all the way north to the Arctic Ocean. Because of the decreased demand for whale oil, the American whale industry was in the decline by the 1850s (JWA, 1981).

In the 20th century, Western nations, as well as America, sent their ships to Antarctic waters, the last area that had rich whale stocks. The Westerners needed whale oil to develop modern machinery industries (Misaki, 1996). They depleted many of the large species in the Antarctic Ocean before W.W.II (Misaki, 1996; JWA, 1981).

The American's aim for whaling was primarily oil. They never have eaten whale meat. As Euller (1970) describes, "In the old days of (Western) whaling, most of the whale was wasted." (p.93-94).

Due to the development of petroleum products in the 1960's, Americans don't need whale oil anymore (Misaki, 1996).

5. How Japan and the U.S. Educate Their Own People about Whaling

(1) Japan

I am Japanese. I was born in Japan and raised in Japan. As I recall my own childhood, I remember many of the memories related to whaling and whales. My mother used to say, "Whale meat is good. It is cheap and nutritious. Most of all, there's nothing to waste." In her words, there was a blessing for whale meat and her feeling of a pride as a Japanese who utilize every parts of a whale.

In a social study class of elementary school, we learned whaling procedure and how whales were brought to the land. There was some description and pictures on whaling in a textbook.

In a Japanese class, we read a story about a whaler. I don't remember the story in detail, but I remember his bravery and my impression from the story that whale meat was beneficial.

I was never told whales were smart or intelligent. However, I had an impression that dolphins were cute and smart because of an American TV show, "Flipper."

(2) The US on Whaling

Information on whales and whaling in the U.S. is very imbalanced. The major libraries in Washington State, including University of Washington's library, don't carry information on the history of Japanese whaling even though Japan has the longest whaling history of the world (Iwai and "Class of the Moon," 1990).

Children are educated with inadequate information on whales through media, propaganda of animal activists and possibly their parents. Kim (1993) states following inadequate information for children in a picture book. "Whalers from Japan, Iceland, and Norway continue to kill minke, sei, and fin whales. They claim it is to study whales, but often they sell the whale meat." This text teaches children a negative image of taking and eating whales by exaggerating commercial whaling and not telling all the facts.

People in the U.S. have easy access to see whales movies, such as "Free Willy," or to get education on marine mammals at various institutions, such as "The Whale Museum" in Washington State, and "The Intersea Foundation." Magazines and newspapers often have advertisements for whale watching programs. I saw one ad of whale watching in the Seattle Times and a one-page article about dolphin research in the Christian Science Monitor on the same day. On the Internet, one can find more than 200 whale-watching sites in one search engine. It is very easy to get information on whales or marine mammals in the U.S. In this way, American people are educated that "Whales are the most specialized of all mammals. They are sentient, they are intelligent, they have their own community, and they can suffer." (Skare, 1994).

As we see previous statements, there is a big difference between Japan and the U.S. in education about whaling.

CONCLUSION

First of all, there is a difference of diet between the Japanese and the Americans behind this issue. This difference comes from their histories. The Japanese have been practicing whaling for 12,000 years. It is impossible for them to get rid of a notion why they cannot eat whale meat. On the other hand, the Westerners have been practicing sheep herding for 11,000 years rather than whaling. It is impossible for Americans to accept the idea that eating whale meat is no worse than eating land mammals.

If both of these nations keep their autonomy, there shouldn't be any problems between them. However, the whaling dispute continues even today. There must be some other things in addition to the difference of diet behind this issue.

When the Japanese captured five orca whales in February 1997, the American media and animal activists immediately reacted. Orca whales are not endangered (The Seattle Times, 1997). What is the problem for them? Their ideology is that intelligent mammals must be conserved (COMO TV, 1997).

Let us examine this ideology thoroughly.

If we take the American's ideology, "Intelligent mammals must be conserved," this indicates, "The American don't care about non-intelligent mammals." If they were concerned about non-intelligent mammals, it would be impossible for them to get one hamburger for 99 cents. Even if non-intelligent mammals, such as cattle, are destroying the rain forests in Latin America, the range land in the U.S., and the atmosphere of the whole world (Frank, 1992), it is all right for the American people to get cheap beef because cattle are non-intelligent mammals. On the other hand, Americans think the Japanese cannot eat whale meat because whales are intelligent mammals. Even if Japan has culturally valued traditional whaling, they don't want to value it because "Intelligent mammals must be conserved."

Behind this argument, there is clearly an ethnocentrism in the U.S. The U.S. forces its own values on Japan.

Lastly, let me add one analysis on this dispute.

What we are puzzling is why the U.S. has two inconsistent policies, which are that it allows the Alaskan Inuit to take endangered bowhead whales while it doesn't allow whaling countries to take abundant minke whales. I regard this inconsistency as an indirect "Japan Bashing."

Japan is portrayed as a cruel and greedy country to the U.S. citizens. Stories about the whaling of the Alaskan Inuit show pure and innocent images of them. They are aborigines. They hunt a modest amount of whales to conserve their culture. On the other hand, Japan7s image is dark. Its whaling is seen as commercial whaling. Activists insinuate that Japan sells whale meat at $25 for 1,000 grams (JWHALE, ?). Even President Clinton implied Japanese whaling as an inappropriate activity. His letter to the Japanese government states that Japan stopped commercial whaling though they still continue whaling activities in the name of the "research whaling"(Clinton, 1996).

I analyze this subject that the U.S. is using the Inuit as a tool to make its own people view Japanese whaling worse. Otherwise the U.S. shouldn't have let the Inuit take endangered bowhead whales. This indirect"Japan Bashing" by the American public encourages the U.S. politicians' move to suppress Japanese whaling through threats of economic sanctions.

I suspect the American politicians and animal activists are gaining from this whaling dispute. The American politicians can win elections by the people's will. Animal activists can gain people's will and money power to move politicians by showing inappropriate information on Japanese whaling. [Animal activists have money. It is said that they spend $10 million a year on their advertisement (Misaki, 1994). Some of the scientists on the Scientific Committee of the IWC had been financed by Greenpeace and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (The International Harpoon, 1996).]

home