Right: Aftermath of war: a shattered, starving Japan struggles to feed itself as American General Douglas Macarthur considers equipping whalers with old military vessels from which to hunt whales for food.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of Japan resuming commercial whaling
1. Japan will only be whaling within its territorial waters
Supporters of the conditions under which Japan now proposes to resume commercial whaling argue that they should not cause dispute with other nations as Japan has indicated that it will limit whaling to its own exclusive economic zone (EEZ) which extends, as with any country, 200 nautical miles from its shoreline. For the last thirty years, since the IWC's imposition of a whaling moratorium in 1986, Japan has been whaling outside its territorial waters, often in waters to which other countries, notable Australia, have laid claim, and sometimes in waters which have been declared whale sanctuaries. Some supporters of Japan's commercial whaling from July 2019 have welcomed it because it means a restriction of the waters within which Japan will be hunting whales.
Much of the disputation that has occurred between Japan and those within the international community opposed to whaling, such as Australia and New Zealand, has come about because Japan has conducted its scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean in waters to which Australia claims territorial rights that are not recognised by Japan. Australia claims about 5.9 million square kilometres of the Antarctic continent, and the adjacent ocean out to 200 nautical miles. However, Japan challenges this claim to the Antarctic and views the waters off the Australian Antarctic Territory as the high seas, which under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea can be fished or otherwise exploited by any nation.
Complicating this issue further has been the establishment of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. The Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary is an area of 50 million square kilometres surrounding the continent of Antarctica where the International Whaling Commission (IWC) has banned all types of commercial whaling. Japan has argued that the establishment of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was in contravention of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) on which the IWC is based and is therefore illegal. Article V(2) of the ICRW states that the creation of any sanctuary must 'be based on scientific findings' and 'take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry'. Japan argues that the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary does not meet these conditions.
The status of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary is reviewed and open to change by the IWC every ten years. During the 2004 meeting a proposal was made by Japan to remove the sanctuary, but it failed to reach the 75 percent majority required. It received 25 votes in favour and 30 votes against with two abstentions.
The new arrangements which will come into practice from July 2019 mean that Japan will now only be whaling within its own territorial waters. This is a much smaller area than the one over which it currently hunts whales and is also not waters to which other countries lay claim. Therefore there are some commentators who have welcomed this change.
Darren Kindleysides, chief executive of the Australian Marine Conservation Society has stated, 'If Japan leaving the IWC spells the end of their Southern Ocean whaling that would be a win for our whales. Australians have been fighting for decades to get the whalers out of the Antarctic.'
A similar point has been made by Paul Watson, founder and executive director of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Watson has stated, 'This move means they[Japan] will have to withdraw from the southern ocean because they can't do their so-called research whaling, which was bogus anyway.'
2. Killing whales for food is no different to hunting game or killing domestically-reared farm animals
Supporters of Japan's decision to resume commercial whaling argued that Western objections to the practice are hypocritical as killing whales for food is no more objectionable than the methods other countries use to supply their populations with animal protein.
Iwao Isone, a Japanese whaler who has hunted the mammal for 44 years, has stated, 'They say it is OK to kill cows but not whales. I couldn't bring myself to kill whales if they looked you in the eyes like cows do.' Another Japanese whaler, Setsuo Izumi, who has been whaling for 37 years, has stated, 'What we eat is different from country to country. It's a cultural thing. In Australia they eat kangaroo but I don't want to eat kangaroo.'
Joji Morishita, deputy director of the far-seas fisheries at the Japanese Fisheries Agency, has argued, 'The West is suffering from double standards. Wildlife is for them to see and admire, and you should only eat animals such as cows and pigs that are reared. But Australia kills three to four million kangaroos a year, and in the US they catch 5.6 million wild deer...
How would Britons react if Hindus tried to ban the eating of the cows they consider holy? The West are trying to force their values on us. It is cultural imperialism.'
In an opinion piece published in The New Nationalist on March 14, 2013, Chris Grezo similarly stated, 'The position of Western governments and media effectively boils down to this: exotic animals are nice to look at; it would be a shame if we couldn't do that anymore. In other words, whales are exotic to us and we like to look at them, so we tell the Japanese that they're not allowed to hunt them.'
Grezo continued, 'How on earth does the West think it has the moral high ground when its factory farming methods quite literally result in the needless torture of billions of animals each year? How can the West, which provides EU subsidies for bullfighting, in which the beasts are partially blinded and stunned beforehand in order to allow the "brave" matador to win, find the audacity to impose laws on Japan?'
In an opinion piece published in The Huffington Post, Katherine Ripley, accused United States critics of whaling of exhibiting culturally-based hypocrisy. Ripley argues, 'There is essentially no difference between hunting non-endangered whales for food and hunting any other species of non-endangered animal, such as deer, for food...
Just as the West looks with disgust upon eastern countries that eat dogs, we malign whaling because whales hold a special place in our hearts. All the while, we sit around our tables eating chickens, cows, and pigs-which studies have proven are actually more intelligent than dogs.
'
Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, has similarly argued, 'Western nations are in a weak position [to argue against whaling on the basis of cruelty] because they inflict so much unnecessary suffering on animals - through culling (the Australian slaughter of kangaroos), hunting and factory farms. The west will have little defence against the charge of cultural bias until it addresses needless animal suffering in its own backyard.'
3. Whaling will help Japan achieve food security
Supporters of Japan renewing commercial whaling argue that the practice is necessary to help achieve food security. Japan is a country which imports approximately 60 percent of its citizens' calorie intake.
This compares with countries such as Australia which produces sufficient food to supply 173 percent of its citizens' calorie requirements and the United States which could supply 124 percent. Japan's geography makes food security difficult to achieve. Japan is an island country and most areas are mountainous with steep terrain and heavily covered with forest. In 2014 out of the total land in Japan 12.0 percent was arable land, 3.1 percent residential area and 66.3 percent forest area. Complicating this situation is that Japan's post World War II industrialisation has drawn even more of its population into the cities, while dramatically improved living standards have prompted a Westernisation of the Japanese diet. Both of these factors have made the country increasingly dependent on food imports, a situation about which Japan's political class is uneasy.
In 2016, Japan announced that the country's food self-sufficiency rate had fallen to a 23-year low on a calorie basis. The self-sufficiency rate fell one percentage point from the previous year to 38 percent, the second-lowest level on record after the 37 percent recorded in fiscal 1993, when the country suffered a serious rice shortage following unstable weather.
The drop reflected significant falls in the production of wheat and other crops in Hokkaido, which suffered typhoon damage, in addition to the continuing decline in rice consumption.
Demand for meat is increasing, due to the Western influence on Japanese dietary habits, while consumption of rice, for which Japan has high levels of self-sufficiency, is steadily declining. Per capita annual rice consumption fell 0.2 kg to 54.4 g, less than half the amount consumed 50 years ago. On the other hand, meat consumption rose 0.9 kg to 31.6 kg. Though the government has set a self-sufficiency target of 45 percent to be achieved by fiscal year 2025, it acknowledges that this will be difficult to reach.
An agricultural cooperative official has stated, 'With the number of farmers decreasing and trade liberalization progressing, the self-sufficiency rate will not rise unless the government goes all out to take necessary steps.'
Increasing whale meat consumption is one of these steps.Kyoshi Ejima, a member of the Japanese Upper House who in 2017 voted in favour of legislation which paved the way for the recently announced return to commercial whaling, stated, 'This resource exists out in the world, there are minke whales down in the Antarctic Ocean that are of body weight of around 5,000 to 10,000 kilograms. These are a great source of food and my position is that we should harness this for food.'
Shigeki Takaya, director of the whaling affairs office at Japan's fisheries agency, has stated, 'Basically, we believe whether it's whales, sharks or tuna, all marine resources should be used sustainably based on scientific research. I think it should not be banned because of emotional or unscientific reasons.'
In September, 2018, Hideki Moronuki, senior fisheries negotiator of the Japanese Fisheries Agency and Alternate Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission (IWC), argued that the IWC should represent both conservation interests and backers of sustainable use of resources. Moronuki has stated, 'If we give up achieving the sustainable use of marine life resources, including whales, Japan will encounter serious difficulties in food security.'
4. Whaling is economically important to some Japanese communities
From the time the IWC imposed a complete ban on commercial whaling, Japan has argued that some of its coastal whaling communities are particularly economically dependent upon whaling and should be allowed to continue the practice. The site of the Japanese ambassador to Australia states on this question, 'Even today, people are engaged in whaling in various parts of the world. This is not the kind of whaling that was formerly conducted by the US, UK and Australia in the past for the sole purpose of obtaining whale oil (machine oil, soap and so on) and which led to overhunting and wastage of resources.
The small-scale whaling carried out today is sustainable whaling rooted in long tradition and distinctive cultures that make effective use of the entire whale for food and for other useful purposes. To reject this type of whaling, including that of Japan, without any scientific justification is denying ...these people.'
In 1990, the Japanese government presented a submission to the International Whaling Commission detailing the effect that the whaling moratorium had had upon Japanese coastal communities that depended on whaling. It stated, 'In Japan the zero-catch limit has affected individuals economically, socially, culturally and in respect to health. The effects include disruption and failure of small businesses, job loss and employment at less valued positions and/or limited work in temporary or seasonal positions. Because of the nature of small-type whaling the zero-catch limit affects individuals in small villages more than in the industrial centres. The small size of the local economy has required physical moves for individuals and families in order to find employment. High levels of unemployment for former whalers result from the highly specialized nature of their work and barriers to re-employment due to age and the particularities of Japanese employment and fisheries practices. As whalers enjoyed prestige, their job loss is especially stressful. Within the family interpersonal stress, disruption of rigid gender related division of labor and stress on children occurs. Local businesses depending on whale products have been severely affected and the loss of revenue threatens the survival of such institutions as fishery cooperative associations. Tourism is highly dependent upon the availability of whale meat which also plays an important role in religious observances and community celebrations. These impacts pose a serious threat to the continued survival of these traditional small communities.'
The report detailed the initiatives that had been taken to assist those economically displaced by the whaling moratorium and the extent to which these measures had succeeded.
Salmon-farming has not proved economically successful and has not benefitted former small type coastal whaling (STCW) communities either in terms of lost income or jobs. Despite a continued fishery based upon small quotas of pilot and beaked whale, more than half the whalers engaged in STCW have lost their jobs as a result of the minke whale zero-catch quota imposed in 1988. Most positions obtained by whalers losing their jobs are seasonal or part-time, low paying and without security or benefits associated with satisfactory employment. Due to the limited (six-month) duration of the STCW season, laid-off whalers are ineligible for more than a few months of compensation under national regulations. Boat owners are not eligible for part-compensation for the lack of livelihood resulting from the minke zero-catch quota, due to the requirement that they surrender their capital equipment and business licenses if receiving government compensation. The ongoing commitments boat owners have to various institutions and individuals in their home communities renders this option socially and culturally, as well as in a business sense, quite unacceptable.
In 2016, Japan once again requested that the IWC allow small hunts by coastal communities, arguing that for three decades these groups had been unjustly barred from a traditional source of food. Russia, Norway and Iceland supported the request, and Russia's deputy IWC commissioner, Valentin Ilyashenko, stated, 'I think that we all have to remember that those four communities in Japan that have been asking for quota, they have a 5,000-year history of whaling.'
5. Whaling bans challenge Japan's cultural and national autonomy
Whaling has been conducted in and around the Japanese coastline for thousands of years. The village of Taiji has long been well known as a whaling centre in Japan and the birthplace of the amitori method of killing whales that spread to a small number of other whaling villages, such as Ayukawa and Wada, in the 17th century.
Advocates of the cultural significance of whaling in Japan argue the it reflects the animistic characteristics of religions such as Shinto and Buddhism which can allow Japanese fishermen to hunt these marine mammals while still honouring them.
Julia Bowett, as part of a 2011 doctoral thesis for the School of Geography and Environmental studies at the University of Tasmania, has noted, 'At Oshima, which was the main whaling ground in Fukuoka, northern Kyushu, a festival was held annually to honour whales and thank them for sacrificing their lives. At least 25 memorials and festivals are held every year in Japan to honour killed whales, with tombs and memorial stones for whales existing in at least 48 locations, from Hokkaido in the north to Kyushu in the south.
Those with reservations about the IWC's opposition to Japan's attempts to re-establish commercial whaling have suggested it indicates an insensitivity to Japanese cultural concerns. Peter Bridgewater, Chair of the IWC from 1995-1998 has stated, 'I witnessed Japan produce volumes of detailed studies on the cultural significance of whales and whaling to key settlements mainly in the north of Honshu - all contemptuously dismissed... to the palpable disappointment of the Japanese delegation.'
Supporters of Japan's resumption of commercial whaling argue that whaling bans undermine the country's cultural and national autonomy. It is claimed that in continuing to support whaling research and to lobby for a resumption of commercial whaling, successive Japanese governments have been asserting their right to act independently of foreign interference.
On December 9, 2015, The Conversation published a comment by Justin Rose, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Law, University of the South Pacific and Adjunct Fellow, Australian Centre for Agriculture and Law, University of New England. Professor Rose argued, 'It is not Japanese demand to eat whale meat that is the primary incentive to continue whaling, but instead the desire to not give in to foreign pressure.'
Rupert Wingfield-Hayes writing for the BBC noted, 'The answer from the Japanese government is that...Japan will never allow foreigners to tell its people what they can and cannot eat. One Japanese official once said to me: "Japanese people never eat rabbits, but we don't tell British people that they shouldn't".'
The same point was made by Shaun O'Dwyer in an opinion piece published in The Japan Times on April 10, 2013. O'Dwyer, an associate professor in the School of Global Japanese Studies at Meiji University, stated, 'While most Japanese today rarely eat whale meat, some defend pelagic whaling out of a belief that Japanese eating habits should not be dictated to by foreign activists.'