On March 31, 2014, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled that Japan’s deliberate hunting, plus incidental killing of whales in the Southern Ocean was in violation of Japan’s legal obligations under an international treaty banning commercial whaling. Japan’s subsequent cancelling of this year’s hunt elicited jubilant responses by anti-whaling NGO communities around the world. This jubilation may be very short-lived, as Japan’s Parliament prepares for a vote to continue its whaling activities in 2015.
For the past 26 years, Japan has continuously argued that its whaling activities were part of a scientific research program; however, in its ruling the ICJ pointed out that it had yielded few scientific results.
In the forum of the International Whaling Commission’s (IWC) annual meetings, the Japanese Government has repeatedly argued for the continuation of whaling. Their argument has relied on three major assertions. First, they claim that ecological data do not unequivocally show that whaling would seriously deplete certain species of whales. Second, those involved in the industry would suffer tremendous hardship if their source of income were to be taken away (similar to the sentiments voiced by the Newfoundland cod fishers in the 1960s and 1970s). Third, and most importantly, the Japanese delegations have argued repeatedly from the point of view of a traditional “Japanese whaling culture”, a tradition that would be lost. Obviously this argument of traditional/subsistence whaling only holds true for small-scale whaling along the Japanese coast and possibly coastal water whaling in the north-western Pacific – neither of which falls under the international ban.
Over the years, the Japanese public support for whaling and consuming whale meat has dropped significantly. The average Japanese adult only eats 40 grams of whale meat per year. The Japanese government’s entrenched position insisting on the defense of cultural heritage has cost the Japanese taxpayer a lot of money. Subsidies for the fiscal year ending September 30 2014 will reach US$ 50 million. Many had hoped that Tokyo would seize the opportunity of the ICJ’s verdict to withdraw completely from whaling.
End of Online Whale Meat Sales
Shortly after the announcement of the ICJ ruling, the Japanese online company, Rakuten, declared an end to online sales of whale and dolphin meat by the end of April 2014. Rakuten’s website not only advertised over 1,200 whale products, it also carries more than 28,000 advertisements for elephant ivory, according to the UK-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and the Humane Society International. As a side note, Rakuten owns the Canadian e-book reader, Kobo, and is a major shareholder in Pinterest.
Notwithstanding Rakuten’s withdrawal from the sale of whale and dolphin meat, the Lower House committee on agriculture and fisheries unanimously approved a resolution on Wednesday, April 16 2014 to demand that the government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe continue to allow the country to hunt whales.
“Japan’s whaling is based on scientific reasons, while counterarguments by anti-whaling groups are emotional, saying they are against the hunts because whales are cute or smart,” said Shunichi Suzuki, a Lower House member of the Liberal Democratic Party. (The Japan Times, April 16 2014)
The Role of Culture
Japanese society relies on gaiatsu, the international pressure that causes Japan to implement internal policy changes that are also supported by strong domestic interests. It is highly likely that the whaling program was seen by many officials to cause unnecessary ongoing friction with the IWC and anti-whaling associations. But it is another matter for domestic actors to find the political will to fight the domestic whaling lobby or the Fisheries Agency in charge of whaling. Gaiatsu allows officials to act without anyone losing face.
So why does Japan continue to risk international condemnation over its whaling activities?
Attitudes toward nature in many cultures are shaped by education and life experiences in specific social environments. Culturally defined views often do not conform to a universal belief on a particular issue. On the contrary, when under pressure, some governments will draw on their cultural uniqueness to justify controversial actions. Japan’s view of whaling as a cultural activity is one such example: Japan’s subsistence whaling history goes back to the 12th century; whaling activities in the Southern Oceans only started in the 1930s. This is also evident in Ottawa’s support of the maritime seal hunt in the face of international condemnation.
In the case of the natural environment, which is oblivious to artificially drawn and observed borders, many environmental disasters, such as climate change, become by their very nature an issue of international concern – thereby contesting harmful cultural practices. Japanese society embraces a belief system that pursues a unique relationship between their “race” and nature; that is to say, they have their own understanding of what it means to protect their own natural environment.
In the case of small scale coastal whaling, the Japanese claims are not different from the Canadian Inuit and American Eskimo aboriginal groups. In the case of the Inupiat and Siberian Yupik Eskimos living in the coastal villages in northern and western Alaska, the groups were given permission to hunt bowhead whales even though this species was considered to be extremely endangered. Thus, by placing the focus on cultural norms, the discussion about whaling has shifted from haggling about ecologically substantiated quota to questions about recognizing culturally contingent moral norms that govern the taking of whales. This is not necessarily a drawback; the slave trade would never have vanished had it been confined to a discussion about quota.
Japan argues that their perception of nature takes into account human activities within their natural environment and such activities are always in concert with nature’s laws. After all, Japanese have been eating whale meat for almost a 1000 years and it has not led to the extinction of whales. Not surprisingly, Japan has felt that headlines portraying them as killers and savages are an insult to their culture. Despite the growing condemnation of whaling world-wide, the anti-whaling lobbies have failed to produce a convincing argument for Japan to make them switch from whale meat, not least because the moral acceptability of alternatives (Pork? Beef? Venison?) seems questionable. Japanese food ethic finds it worse to kill domestic animals than wild animals, asking “How can people kill an animal they have taken great care to feed and raise?”
Given the switch from quantities to norms, can international law settle disputes that arise from cultural relativism? Unfortunately, international law is too weak and lacks teeth– organizations such as Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, and Earthtrust have long maintained that environmental treaties can only succeed when backed by action. These organizations act as watchdogs over government polices and operations. However, although NGOs are vital to the due process of environment protection, they have as of yet no seat at international negotiation tables. In the absence of a strong international law enforcement to deter defection from agreements, the responsibility of monitoring and verification remains in the hands of poorly committed national governments and ill-empowered NGOs.
In the case of Japan, its government could very well decide to leave the International Whaling Commission, just as Canada did in 1982. It probably has not yet taken this step because: A) it is, and would like to continue to be seen as, an upstanding member of the international community; B) it still believes very strongly that it can continue whale hunting while remaining a member of the IWC; and C) Japan respects international law and currently seeks to have its influence strengthened so as to ensure continued international support for its ongoing territorial disputes with China and South Korea. Changes in any of those three considerations might put Japan over the brink, which would be in nobody’s interest, including the whales.
***
Sabina W Lautensach is a cultural anthropologist with two decades of research experience in international and intercultural negotiation specifically involving Japan and other Pacific countries.
