CSI OPPOSES PROPOSED IWC RMS

At its meeting on 28 August 2000, the Board of Directors of the Cetacean Society International voted unanimously for the society to oppose any adoption of a Revised Management Scheme (RMS) by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). CSI has always stood for no whale quotas and no sanctioning of whale slaughter. This continues to be the CSI position - no commercial whale killing ever, no compromise. The following editorial by CSI Director Emeritus Robbins Barstow expresses the CSI's position and feelings, and sets forth the reasoning on which this policy is based.

Don't Legalize Whale Slaughter for Money

An Editorial by Dr. Robbins Barstow, Director Emeritus, Cetacean Society International

The new millennium's crossroads struggle over the RMS in the IWC is above all a matter of moral principle. But the decisions now facing the member governments of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in relation to the proposed adoption of a Revised Management Scheme (RMS) for the global authorization of renewed commercial whale killing also involve practical, tactical considerations.

Moral Principle

The conflict in principle is between those who believe that the killing of whales for commercial purposes has become morally unjustifiable and those who contend that harvesting whales for profit should again be recognized as an acceptable form of utilization of cetacean resources.

Over the past few decades the special nature of whales and other cetaceans has led increasing numbers of people and nations worldwide to regard the slaughter of whales for money as both inhumane and unethical. Whales are intelligent, sentient beings who have been subjected to a cruel and bloody fate. Benign research techniques are widely available. Killing whales for science or for sale is today utterly unnecessary. Global opinion opposes it.

Resolutions by the European Parliament and other governmental bodies, including unanimous adoptions by both houses of the United States Congress, have expressed strong opposition to any resumption of commercial whaling. Statements by many scientists and by overwhelming numbers of non-governmental organizations around the world have urged member nations to work toward an IWC regime of full global protection for whales from consumptive, commercial exploitation and from lethal scientific whaling.

Sustainable use of natural resources does not require consumptive use. The "optimum utilization of the whale resources" called for in the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (Article V, Section 2) needs to be reinterpreted as constituting non-lethal, non-consumptive research, recreational, and educational activities, such as those involved in benign whale watching.

I believe that those of us who are committed to the above principles must continue to fight in every legitimate way possible to prevent the IWC from adopting any Revised Management Scheme that would legitimize the commercial killing of whales. As is the case with human slavery, there can be no compromise on this.

Tactical Considerations

Governments and NGO's committed to maintaining "whales alive" will soon be confronted with both short-term and long-term practical, tactical determinations.

For the immediate future, it is imperative that at the forthcoming IWC "intersessional" meeting in Monaco in February member delegations insist that there be no further movement on the proposed Revised Management Scheme until Japan and Norway agree to adhere to accepted norms of international behavior and to stop their ongoing whaling, in compliance with the resolutions adopted by the majority of parties to the IWC. If that occurs, discussion could continue, based on including consideration of such global problems as pollution, climate change, undersea noise, ship strikes, and other manmade influences on the ocean environment.

Looking to the longer-range future, it has been argued that the only hope for the whales is for their conservation and any and all whaling to be brought back under international control, and that to achieve this some whaling has to be legitimized by the IWC. "When we have that," it has been asserted, "then we can begin again to try to bring whaling to an end."

I strongly disagree with this tactical assessment. In my view, it would be far worse to legalize whale slaughter for money by establishing whale-killing quotas within the IWC than to have scofflaw nations continue to carry on unauthorized whaling operations outside the IWC.

Once the resumption of commercial whaling to any degree is legitimized by formal agreement in the IWC, which is the globally recognized appropriate international organization for cetacean conservation, management, and study, the flood gates will be open beyond recall. It will be many long decades or even centuries before humankind will be able to reassert the moral principle that whale killing for profit is unjustifiable.

Will fewer whales actually be killed if the IWC makes it legal again, in order to maintain control? It appears to me to be totally unrealistic to expect Japan and Norway to adhere to any management scheme resulting in the taking of fewer whales than they already are doing in defiance of the IWC.

The strongest weapon which whale protectionists have is the force of public opinion. Legitimizing any commercial whale killing by international agreement would critically weaken this weapon. Condemnation of Japan, Norway, and other commercial whaling operations will have infinitely less power if the whalers can claim international approval through an IWC RMS.

Worldwide outrage is most strongly aroused over whaling perpetrated outside treaty rules, such as in established sanctuaries or for officially disapproved "research." And if Japan and Norway were to leave the IWC, because of no RMS, they would become subject to an escalation of even greater global, moral pressure.

Now is the time for all who believe in saving whales, not just from extinction, but from brutal exploitation for commercial gain, to rally together and stand firm against the adoption and implementation of any Revised Management Scheme to legitimize the slaughter.

We owe it to ourselves and to the whales not to surrender our principle, but to seek fervently to maintain in the IWC and elsewhere the global conviction that it is morally unjust to kill whales for money. In the ultimate analysis, it is this conviction which must sway the hearts and minds of persons in all countries to sustain a universal policy of no harvesting of whales.

- Wethersfield, Connecticut, USA