The ethical discussion at this year's IWC meeting has so far concentrated on what is permissible for humans to do to whales. But the EIA television programme on Faroese pilot whaling shows us that there is a need to take a serious look at the ethical relationship between anti-whalers and whalers. The EIA has as its aim to stop pilot whaling in the Faroe Islands. They are trying to force an end to the hunt with an economic boycott of Faroese products to "bring the Faroese to their knees." They believe that Faroe Islanders kill pilot whales for "the fun of it" and describe the hunt as a "sickness". At one stage there was some communication, at least informally, between the defenders of pilot whaling and the EIA. The EIA programme has effectively put an end to that. EIA campaigners asked Louis Wilson from the Faroe Islands Solidarity Committee to meet with them to "get a better understanding" of the Faroese position. They wanted "dialogue", they said. According to Wilson, the meeting at a London bar was very pleasant, and one of the EIA campaigners promised Wilson to look into what he thought was misrepresentation of the hunt. But shock, disgust and humiliation were his reactions when he suddently saw himself on national television at the very same bar, in the film on the EIA campaign. One of the campaigners had hidden a camera under the table. Hans Jacob Hermansen, Chairman of the Pilot Whalers' Association in Tórshavn, had the same feelings after being decived by another EIA campaigner posing as a journalist also with a camera hidden in her bag

Faroe Islanders are not doing anything illegal. They are not trading poached rhino horn. They have hunted pilot whales for hundred of years and there is no sign that the stock is less abundant today than for the last four centuries. In this case, the EIA is not fighting a mafia. What we really see, from the distorted perspective of the camera in the bag, is a clash of values.

What means are permissible for the EIA to adopt in their campaign against what they perceive as a "sickness"? What are the ethical criteria for campaigning? Is deceiving okay? Lying? Using bugs to record private conversations? Should the Faroe Islanders - and the people defending Faroese interests - be treated with respect? Or are they scum who deserve to be duped and humiliated?

At meetings of the International Whaling Commission, the two sides of the whaling debate operate at very close quarters; sitting in the same meeting rooms, staying at the same hotels and eating at the same restaurants. The camps keep largely to themselves, but there is mingling across the lines. Such contacts are valuable. They develop respect for the views of the other side, but also help move the debate up to a higher level.

Many people on the whaling side have been on speaking terms with members of the EIA. The EIA's stated desire to establish "dialogue" and "build bridges" seems to be nothing more than a trap to lure gullible defenders of whaling into focus with the hidden lens. The EIA is not willing to give any criteria for the use of hidden cameras and microphones. They will go to whatever lengths they believe are necessary to get what they believe is the truth. A lot of highly confidential conversations go on in both camps during IWC meetings. It is a paradise for people with a lack of ethics and sophisticated recording devices.

The EIA's lack of ethics was also revealed last year when they betrayed their friends and leaked to the Observer the new tactics to "outfox the whalers once and for all" agreed among the major anti-whaling NGOs and the core group of anti-whaling nations in the IWC. This betrayal made it possible to pose - at the cost of the others in the save-the-whale camp - as "the only group" defending whales.

Trust is at the core of all relationships. When you say something, even to your enemy, he should be able to trust you. It is now clear that the EIA is actively cultivating mistrust at the International Whaling Commisson.