Source: The International Harpoon, No. 1, October 20,1997
A Mythical Beast
"The United States continues to believe ... that Norway should abide by the moratorium, which reflects the international will regarding commercial whaling." Press statement, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Dept. of Commerce, Oct. 10, 1997.
If, as the anti-whaling lobby insists, that mythical beast «world opinion» exists — and we doubt that it does — then world opinion is no longer on their side.
Norway’s proposal to CITES to downlist two North Atlantic minke stocks to Appendix II won a simple majority of 57 votes in favour to 51 against. The two-thirds’ majority required for the downlisting to come about was not achieved, but the vote clearly indicated the strength of support in CITES for the sustainable use principle based on scientific criteria. Equally clear was the lack of confidence in the scientific basis of the IWC’s whaling ban.
«It is the first time there has been a vote in Norway’s favour, which people regard as very significant,» said IWC secretary Ray Gambell to the New York Times. Noting that the objective of the IWC is to promote rational whaling practises, not necessarily to ban them, he said that the momentum achieved by Norway at CITES could carry over to the IWC here in Monaco.
Among international bodies, CITES ranks as one of the very largest, with 136 signatories. That’s quite a lot compared with the IWC’s 39 members, and even more than the mere 30 who turned up last year in Aberdeen.
Can we therefore say that CITES, not the IWC, speaks for the international community on the subject of whaling? If not, would the anti-whalers concede that «world opinion» is divided? At the very least, could the anti-whalers agree to stop using this expression, and substitute it with something honest like "we think"?