Copenhagen, 17 January 1996
Dear Honourable Ambassador Elson,
First of all we would like to thank you for kindly receiving us on such a short
notice. We kindly request that you deliver the following viewpoint to the
appropriate authorities in the US.
As long as the Inuit have traded commercially with other people, the sale of seal skin products has been fundamental to the survival and development of our settlements and our economy. This is the reason why the collapse of the seal skin market in the seventies led to major social and economical problems. In many settlements other resources than seals on which one can make a living are scarce. Due to this the Greenland Home Rule Government has chosen to subsidize seal hunters and the development of seal products in order to maintain the hunting settlements and the entire culture based on seal hunting.
The ban not only caused the Inuit to loose an important market, but of even greater importance was that the ban resulted in an international opinion believing that seal skins were a suspicious and unacceptable product - AND that the hunting of seals was an environmental threat to an endangered species. The US Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was used very actively by different organizations in campaigns designed to undermine the market for seal skin.
MMPA has for many years contributed to diminish the Greenland hunters economy and standard of living. The hunting communities in Canada have been hit even harder.
From our point of view the import ban is impossible to decipher. We can not detect any rational reasons for such a general ban.
* The Ban has no Ecological Foundation
as it has been imposed on all species and all populations of marine mammals,
without any evaluation of the status of the species or population. A lot of marine
mammal populations are very large and very viable. The harp seal population of
the waters between Canada and Greenland runs up to 4,7 million animals - just to
name an example. Furthermore, an already existing international agreement,
which is largely supported world wide, CITES, was especially designed to
regulate the trade in endangered species, and it has proven to be very effective
for this purpose. Both the USA and Denmark have signed this agreement. None of
the seal species in Greenland waters are included in the CITES Appendix I, and
should therefore not be subject to any trade restrictions.
* The ban is not consistent with US national law and law management
When compared to other forms of wild life the USA has enormous wild life resources. These resources are being utilized both
for sports hunting and for commercial hunting, within the framework of a
sustainable use management. In this respect the management policies of
Greenland and the US are identical. USA is one of the world's major exporting
nations of pelts from wild fur bearers. It is impossible for us to understand how a
nation on one hand vigorously defends its own citizens' right to make a profit
from export and on the other hand denies other countries to profit in the same
way from their local resources.
* The Ban is not Ethically Founded
there is no reason to believe that the hunting methods employed in sealing are
less humane than the hunting of terrestrial mammals. We would like to remind
that the legislation in some US states even allows the use of bow and arrow when
hunting for large animals.
* The Ban is in conflict with one of the cornerstones of US law
the freedom of the individual to express his/hers religious and cultural beliefs.
The freedom to wear the clothing one chooses to is a natural part of these
fundamental freedom rights. Numerous American tourists visiting Canada,
Greenland and Denmark wish to purchase seal skin products and bring them back
home. Many do not even realise that such a ban exists, which prohibits this, other
choose to ignore it.
This is clearly demonstrated in the long lists, which are published every year, showing the number of marine mammal products seized by US Customs. Familiar items on the list are especially seal skin slippers and coats. We have noted with amazement that American citizens are not even allowed to wear a pair of seal skin slippers if they want to. To us - this seems harmless.
But then again, this only goes to prove that the ban from our point of view presents itself as irrational and inconsistent. Furthermore it is directly in violation of the obligations the US has undertaken in international agreement
The report which we hand over today "The GATT consistency of the U.S. Import Embargo on Harp Seal Fur Coats from Greenland" concludes without doubt that the US import ban is a violation of GATT. The report has been prepared by the Canadian Professor of International Law Dr. Ted McDorman on request of the international umbrella organization for hunters in Greenland, Iceland, Norway and the Faeroe Island: High North Alliance.
The conclusion of the report has been confirmed by the EU commission's acceptance of the fact that their planned ban on import of wild furs from the US was a violation of GATT. On this background the trade element of the EU trapping regulation var amended. In this case, the US and Canada has threatened the EU to take the case to the WTO court to have the EU import ban declared illegal.
The parallels in these two cases are crystal clear. The trade element of the EU trapping regulation is an attempt to influence other nation's environmental and resource management policies - through trade measures. Furthermore the scope of the Rio Declaration is that unilateral actions to deal with environmental problems outside the jurisdiction of the importing country should be avoided.
The US import ban is also an infringement of our right to a job and an adequate standard of living, such as it is formulated in e.g. the International Convention on Economical, Social and Cultural Rights. We realise that the US has not ratified this agreement, but do work under the assumption that the US agrees with its general principles.
Finally, we would like to point out that we are in the decade for Indigenous Peoples. One of the themes to which there has been based most focus in connection with this decade is the UN initiative which will enable Indigenous Peoples' to plan and develop their economy though production and trade. We would like to draw your attention to e.g. the final document from the Nordic Council of Ministers' Seminar for Indigenous Peoples' Production and Trade which took place in Copenhagen from 15 - 17 January 1996.
We sincerely request the USA to make the necessary amendments within the MMPA, so that the act respects the terms of the GATT about free and fair trade. This could be the US contribution to the UN decade of the Indigenous Peoples. Such a step would enable the Inuit to further develop their economy and strengthen their culture on the basis of a sustainable utilization of local renewable resources.
Yours Sincerely
Aqqaluk Lynge, Vicepresident
Inuit Circumpolar Conference